3 ms·
What I intended to hint at is that a bag being expressive is not the issue. Yeah you sometimes want to label the bags, or make special purpose bags. But bags as
by dgb23 5y ago
What I intended to hint at is that a bag being expressive is not the issue. Yeah you sometimes want to label the bags, or make special purpose bags. But bags as they are are not too expressive. Them being expressive allows for all that other stuff. Their core utility is what we're after and the rest is secondary support and should be treated as such or else we get lost.
If we act like we're not actually dealing with bags at a fundamental level, we might mislead ourselves and spread the belief that the rules and labels around the bags are what matters. No, they help you (temporarily) to use the bags in a specific way in some context.
In fact, computers are extremely expressive, (bag like) things. The constraints are auxiliary. I think it's important that we keep reminding us what programming is and that it serves a direct purpose, while the bureaucracy is a support structure at best.
- the_af 5y agoAgreed that computers are extremely expressive. I think the constraints are necessary though, and not just bureaucracy. After all, what are bugs (especially harmful bugs) but a failure to constrain choices?
- throwawaygh 5y ago> The constraints are auxiliary. Constraints enable reasoning, both automatic and manual. Loops fit the single-core CPU hardware paradigm extraordinarily well. As soon as you start targeting modern hardware, more constrained recursion/iteration schemes start to buy a lot more in terms of both developer time and compiler complexity.