4 ms·

These are names for products though, not programming concepts. A more accurate analogy would be calling a class a Kay template or calling a for loop a Lovelace

by bsza 6y ago

These are names for products though, not programming concepts. A more accurate analogy would be calling a class a Kay template or calling a for loop a Lovelace construct. And it's great that we don't do that.

DonCopal 6y ago
We do have Shor's algorithm, Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm etc.
- bsza 6y ago
  Who is "we"? Both Shor and Jozsa are mathematicians and Deutsch is a physicist.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
srtjstjsj 6y ago
Lucky us, we have Booleans, Turing Machines, Bolzmann machines, Markov Chains, Liskov Substitution Principle, ISO 8601 dates, the MIT and BSD licenses (hat-tip to the GPL), and the wholly ambiguous concept of a "class" or "object-orientation"
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > Booleans On-off switches. Or conditionals. Or bits (depending on implementations). Or truthy/falsey values. > Turing Machines Symbolic tape machines. > Bolzmann machines Hidden-unit binary threshold networks. > Markov Chains Cumulative event probability chains. > Liskov Substitution Principle Instance Substitution Principle. > ISO 8601 dates Big-endian dates (or simply YYYY-MM-DD dates). > the MIT and BSD licenses n-clause copycenter licenses.
  - Twisol 6y ago
    > Booleans Truth values. > Turing Machines Tape automata. (Though there are a lot of variants.) > Liskov Substitution Principle Behavioral subtyping. Even Liskov calls it this, but "SOBID" doesn't have the same ring to it. (BOIDS?) > ISO 8601 Lexicographic dates. (ISO 8601 also specifies ordinal dates, with day of year (i.e. YYYY-DDD), but the "big endian" ordering principle is still accurate.) Although "ISO 8601" tells you what specification describes it, which is a lot better than widgets named after people.
- bsza 6y ago
  > Booleans, Turing Machines, Bolzmann machines, Markov Chains As someone with a degree in pure math, I can tell you, we had Turing machines, Boolean networks and Markov chains coming out of our ears. These are not programming concepts; all of these people were mathematicians/physicians who lived before computers even existed. This is just reaffirming the point that mathematicians tend to name things after each other. > Liskov Substitution Principle Actually, this is the only instance of a "truly" programming concept named after a person that I know of. And by "truly", I mean that a mathematician does not benefit from knowing this (would probably even write it off as "trivial"). It really is about the art of designing programs. Well, at least it has "substitution" in its name. Not like a Noetherian ring, which is just the opposite of an Artinian ring :D Licenses belong to law. And ISO is not run by programmers either (for Christ's sake, they have a standard for A CUP OF TEA). This goes to show how much of a polymath a programmer has to be. Reminds me of this fun little rant: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1311_05-08_mickens.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1311_05-08_mickens.pdf
  - lucumo 6y ago
    > (would probably even write it off as "trivial") As a programmer, I would agree. So much so that I find it easier to remember the concept than the name. But so it goes. People like their own name on things for masturbatory purposes and are willing to tolerate other people's masturbation to do it. At great cost to us all.

by bsza 6y ago

DonCopal 6y ago

We do have Shor's algorithm, Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm etc.

bsza 6y ago
Who is "we"? Both Shor and Jozsa are mathematicians and Deutsch is a physicist.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

srtjstjsj 6y ago

Lucky us, we have Booleans, Turing Machines, Bolzmann machines, Markov Chains, Liskov Substitution Principle, ISO 8601 dates, the MIT and BSD licenses (hat-tip to the GPL), and the wholly ambiguous concept of a "class" or "object-orientation"

yellowapple 6y ago
> Booleans On-off switches. Or conditionals. Or bits (depending on implementations). Or truthy/falsey values. > Turing Machines Symbolic tape machines. > Bolzmann machines Hidden-unit binary threshold networks. > Markov Chains Cumulative event probability chains. > Liskov Substitution Principle Instance Substitution Principle. > ISO 8601 dates Big-endian dates (or simply YYYY-MM-DD dates). > the MIT and BSD licenses n-clause copycenter licenses.
- Twisol 6y ago
  > Booleans Truth values. > Turing Machines Tape automata. (Though there are a lot of variants.) > Liskov Substitution Principle Behavioral subtyping. Even Liskov calls it this, but "SOBID" doesn't have the same ring to it. (BOIDS?) > ISO 8601 Lexicographic dates. (ISO 8601 also specifies ordinal dates, with day of year (i.e. YYYY-DDD), but the "big endian" ordering principle is still accurate.) Although "ISO 8601" tells you what specification describes it, which is a lot better than widgets named after people.
bsza 6y ago
> Booleans, Turing Machines, Bolzmann machines, Markov Chains As someone with a degree in pure math, I can tell you, we had Turing machines, Boolean networks and Markov chains coming out of our ears. These are not programming concepts; all of these people were mathematicians/physicians who lived before computers even existed. This is just reaffirming the point that mathematicians tend to name things after each other. > Liskov Substitution Principle Actually, this is the only instance of a "truly" programming concept named after a person that I know of. And by "truly", I mean that a mathematician does not benefit from knowing this (would probably even write it off as "trivial"). It really is about the art of designing programs. Well, at least it has "substitution" in its name. Not like a Noetherian ring, which is just the opposite of an Artinian ring :D Licenses belong to law. And ISO is not run by programmers either (for Christ's sake, they have a standard for A CUP OF TEA). This goes to show how much of a polymath a programmer has to be. Reminds me of this fun little rant: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1311_05-08_mickens.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1311_05-08_mickens.pdf
- lucumo 6y ago
  > (would probably even write it off as "trivial") As a programmer, I would agree. So much so that I find it easier to remember the concept than the name. But so it goes. People like their own name on things for masturbatory purposes and are willing to tolerate other people's masturbation to do it. At great cost to us all.