3 ms·

> better ratio of fundamental simplicity to power That's an odd ratio to consider. Is high better or low? Or is there some particular positive optimal value

> better ratio of fundamental simplicity to power That's an odd ratio to consider. Is high better or low? Or is there some particular positive optimal value we want to target?

inopinatus 6y ago
Ah, that’s meant as a qualitative figure of speech, not a measurable objective function. Intended to express that Scheme is a simple language that remains apparently simple even when you build tremendously powerful constructs within it and upon it. In this case by contrast with CSS where no matter how much sophistication one tries to introduce into the styles its capabilities seem to be horizontally asymptotic or very substantially sublinear. I reach for the word ratio because the concept (of two parameters whose magnitude varies and that would be meaningful in some relation) is a friend, and the word “better” is a writing trick to avoid having to define exactly what those are whilst still expressing the sentiment.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dllthomas 6y ago
  > I reach for the word ratio because the concept (of two parameters whose magnitude varies and that would be meaningful in some relation) is a friend, and the word “better” is a writing trick to avoid having to define exactly what those are whilst still expressing the sentiment. The use of ratio is entirely appropriate for conveying this, even in non-technical settings (and such use is pretty common). But to my ear, there's a definite implication that the relationship involves the two things typically moving in the same direction (and roughly linearly) such that it's notable when they've moved in opposite directions. (It's still very much qualitative - we're not really going to be able to assign meaningful numbers). Had you spoken of complexity/power, I wouldn't have noticed anything unusual. Even so, I only really commented because I was enjoying playing with the idea of a simplicity/power ratio being somehow informative.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    Rich Hickey could probably make an hour-long conference talk out of it.

> better ratio of fundamental simplicity to power That's an odd ratio to consider. Is high better or low? Or is there some particular positive optimal value we want to target?

inopinatus 6y ago

Ah, that’s meant as a qualitative figure of speech, not a measurable objective function. Intended to express that Scheme is a simple language that remains apparently simple even when you build tremendously powerful constructs within it and upon it. In this case by contrast with CSS where no matter how much sophistication one tries to introduce into the styles its capabilities seem to be horizontally asymptotic or very substantially sublinear. I reach for the word ratio because the concept (of two parameters whose magnitude varies and that would be meaningful in some relation) is a friend, and the word “better” is a writing trick to avoid having to define exactly what those are whilst still expressing the sentiment.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dllthomas 6y ago
> I reach for the word ratio because the concept (of two parameters whose magnitude varies and that would be meaningful in some relation) is a friend, and the word “better” is a writing trick to avoid having to define exactly what those are whilst still expressing the sentiment. The use of ratio is entirely appropriate for conveying this, even in non-technical settings (and such use is pretty common). But to my ear, there's a definite implication that the relationship involves the two things typically moving in the same direction (and roughly linearly) such that it's notable when they've moved in opposite directions. (It's still very much qualitative - we're not really going to be able to assign meaningful numbers). Had you spoken of complexity/power, I wouldn't have noticed anything unusual. Even so, I only really commented because I was enjoying playing with the idea of a simplicity/power ratio being somehow informative.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  Rich Hickey could probably make an hour-long conference talk out of it.