3 ms·

While I do like me some good meta-reasoning, at least I have an argument for shorter function names: Short names are read in O(1) while longer are O(n) (unless

by ptr 6y ago

While I do like me some good meta-reasoning, at least I have an argument for shorter function names: Short names are read in O(1) while longer are O(n) (unless the name can be simplified as “the function with the long name”)

Geminidog 6y ago
Then you need to shorten your comment! Not as verbose as my replies but it can definitely use some improvement on the big Oh! Try this out for size: > me like metareason, me have arg for short func name: Short name O(1), long are O(n) (some name too long: “the function with the long name”) There's where your logic breaks down. If you truly followed the O(N) argument for all your communication mediums outside of programming you'd sound not so intelligent. Likely you built this argument as a response rather then actually followed it in both your English and programming communication styles. Better re-examine that meta-reasoning.
- ptr 6y ago
  It's probably not worth continuing here, seeing that you're already pretty hostile. But I definitely try to minimize the amount of reading necessary to understand a concept. Ideally, the concept should be such that it's easy to describe in few words (note "words", not "letters". Also, using many words doesn't make you sound smarter, often it's the opposite). Things don't live in a vacuum, there's always a context, and that's important to consider when communicating...
  - Geminidog 6y ago
    There were people who were insulting to me. You are not one of those people and I was not hostile to you. I wasn't really hostile to those other people also just slightly less polite in my replies. I'm trying to reflect the slight humor in your original post had and I guess it came off as too sarcastic. Apologies. Right I get your point and I'm saying the point is invalid because it doesn't apply to English. Clearly in all your English posts to me you can destroy some portion of the grammar and spelling while maintaining the same level of readability. That is an inherit contradiction to your logic and the way humans think. You save screen space with code but not with english. We use code and english to communicate. Why does your logic which clearly makes sense when applied to code but makes zero sense when applied to English? Why do we want all our english to be much more wordy and verbose then code? My point is that O(n) doesn't actually matter to us because we don't care to save on time complexity for the english language. Clearly english reads better then code so why don't we take programming up to the exact same verbosity level as english? The contradiction between verbosity in code and verbosity in english is the crust of my argument. We also clearly prefer reading english and communicating in english over communicating in code and thus I'm saying it makes sense to bring up your programming verbosity so it reads like english. Also the whole point of the meta reasoning is to point out our contradictory bias. The need to shorten names in code clearly does not come from logical reasoning given the contradictions.

by ptr 6y ago

Geminidog 6y ago

Then you need to shorten your comment! Not as verbose as my replies but it can definitely use some improvement on the big Oh! Try this out for size: > me like metareason, me have arg for short func name: Short name O(1), long are O(n) (some name too long: “the function with the long name”) There's where your logic breaks down. If you truly followed the O(N) argument for all your communication mediums outside of programming you'd sound not so intelligent. Likely you built this argument as a response rather then actually followed it in both your English and programming communication styles. Better re-examine that meta-reasoning.

ptr 6y ago
It's probably not worth continuing here, seeing that you're already pretty hostile. But I definitely try to minimize the amount of reading necessary to understand a concept. Ideally, the concept should be such that it's easy to describe in few words (note "words", not "letters". Also, using many words doesn't make you sound smarter, often it's the opposite). Things don't live in a vacuum, there's always a context, and that's important to consider when communicating...
- Geminidog 6y ago
  There were people who were insulting to me. You are not one of those people and I was not hostile to you. I wasn't really hostile to those other people also just slightly less polite in my replies. I'm trying to reflect the slight humor in your original post had and I guess it came off as too sarcastic. Apologies. Right I get your point and I'm saying the point is invalid because it doesn't apply to English. Clearly in all your English posts to me you can destroy some portion of the grammar and spelling while maintaining the same level of readability. That is an inherit contradiction to your logic and the way humans think. You save screen space with code but not with english. We use code and english to communicate. Why does your logic which clearly makes sense when applied to code but makes zero sense when applied to English? Why do we want all our english to be much more wordy and verbose then code? My point is that O(n) doesn't actually matter to us because we don't care to save on time complexity for the english language. Clearly english reads better then code so why don't we take programming up to the exact same verbosity level as english? The contradiction between verbosity in code and verbosity in english is the crust of my argument. We also clearly prefer reading english and communicating in english over communicating in code and thus I'm saying it makes sense to bring up your programming verbosity so it reads like english. Also the whole point of the meta reasoning is to point out our contradictory bias. The need to shorten names in code clearly does not come from logical reasoning given the contradictions.