5 ms·

I've watched that video at least three times, but I still can't articulate the exact distinction he is making between simple and easy :/

aidenn0 4y ago
Add two 10000 digit numbers by hand. That's quite simple to do, but it's certainly not easy.
- honkler 4y ago
  it's easy but mundane. If you pay me, I'll do it.
kortex 4y ago
A for loop is easy: everyone can conceptualize doing a process N times. A map is not as easy of a concept in some ways (it's more abstract, you are taking N elements of X to N elements of Y). But a map is simpler than a for loop, because there is no state between steps: it's completely symmetrical. The for-loop "complects" each iteration together, even if it's as little as incrementing an integer. It's a side effect, however trivial. To kick it up a notch, now imagine a 2-D loop. Now we have 2 counters. If it's a 2-D array, each addressing operation interacts with 2 counters. But map just needs a second map chained on, and each map is completely "unaware" of the other map. You could map over N dimensions and each map is symmetrical, while the for loop needs an ever increasing number of counters. This slight difference in complexity shows how complexity compounds with other complexity.
kirubakaran 4y ago
The solution to losing weight is simple: eat fewer calories than you burn. It's not easy though.
Beltalowda 4y ago
Let's say you have a function that does a lot of different things, and you just call: doStuff() That's easy, right? But "doStuff()" may be a very complicated function, that's very hard to understand, so it's not simple. A real-world example might be something like the type conversion that JavaScript and PHP do in comparisons; "just do 0 == '0' and it'll work, easy right?", but turns out those conversion rules aren't simple at all.
wtetzner 4y ago
Simple more or less means "decoupled", not necessarily convenient.

aidenn0 4y ago

Add two 10000 digit numbers by hand. That's quite simple to do, but it's certainly not easy.

honkler 4y ago
it's easy but mundane. If you pay me, I'll do it.

kortex 4y ago

A for loop is easy: everyone can conceptualize doing a process N times. A map is not as easy of a concept in some ways (it's more abstract, you are taking N elements of X to N elements of Y). But a map is simpler than a for loop, because there is no state between steps: it's completely symmetrical. The for-loop "complects" each iteration together, even if it's as little as incrementing an integer. It's a side effect, however trivial. To kick it up a notch, now imagine a 2-D loop. Now we have 2 counters. If it's a 2-D array, each addressing operation interacts with 2 counters. But map just needs a second map chained on, and each map is completely "unaware" of the other map. You could map over N dimensions and each map is symmetrical, while the for loop needs an ever increasing number of counters. This slight difference in complexity shows how complexity compounds with other complexity.

kirubakaran 4y ago

The solution to losing weight is simple: eat fewer calories than you burn. It's not easy though.

Beltalowda 4y ago

Let's say you have a function that does a lot of different things, and you just call: doStuff() That's easy, right? But "doStuff()" may be a very complicated function, that's very hard to understand, so it's not simple. A real-world example might be something like the type conversion that JavaScript and PHP do in comparisons; "just do 0 == '0' and it'll work, easy right?", but turns out those conversion rules aren't simple at all.

wtetzner 4y ago

Simple more or less means "decoupled", not necessarily convenient.