2 ms·
Does this imply that anti-functionalism is better? I.e. gzip and the human brain can probably compress repetition and local effects very easily -- and this is
by tsegratis 6y ago
Does this imply that anti-functionalism is better?
I.e. gzip and the human brain can probably compress repetition and local effects very easily -- and this is what purity gives. So with purity I can only represent the obvious (i.e. easily computable), and gzip suggests this is the part of the computation that least needs expressing -- since it is already the most clear
But allowing anything to affect anything else in any way; as a maxima; allows me to represent the least-obvious algorithms most succinctly -- and least-obvious algorithms are the most important ones to represent succinctly!
I feel like there is some truth here, but it is not the whole story. What am I missing?
- tsegratis 6y agoI suppose I assumed less-obvious algorithims always have semantically meaningful differences to more-obvious algorithims But we can hope that this is rarely the case More-obvious always wins if there are never any semantic differences Good programming is finding the most-obvious algorithim while keeping the same semantics -- and even sometimes changing the semantics to make them more obvious In that vein, a side question I often ask myself is, which should the algorithm represent clearly: 1) The problem 2) The solution 3) The transition between those two All 3 have validiy, and result in very different programming paradigm How can I choose one above the other??
- tsegratis 6y agoI'd like an answer to that if anybody would care to ;) 1) The problem. Maps well to macros 2) The solution. Maps well to prolog 3) The transition. Maps well to imperative What basis can I use for choosing between those goals?? -- The given mappings are examples