4 ms·

I really like this quote: Bingo Card Creator is not terribly complicated software when compared to most applications, but it sits on top of other pieces of cod

by bgraves 15y ago

I really like this quote: Bingo Card Creator is not terribly complicated software when compared to most applications, but it sits on top of other pieces of code (Rails, the web server the browser, the TCP/IP stack, the underlying OS, the hardware on both ends, etc) which _collectively_ are orders of magnitude more complicated than any physical artifact ever created by the human race. You can insert any number of one-off business applications, reports, queries, etc in place of "Bingo Card Creator" but the concept remains true.

neutronicus 15y ago
As a physicist, I really want to argue with that statement. In particular, computer hardware operates (by design) as far as possible from any regimes where the laws of physics are well and truly complicated. A tokamak fusion reactor, by contrast, although it breaks down into orders of magnitude fewer logical parts, contains a big blob of monolithic, continuous complexity, namely the plasma itself and all its associated electromagnetic fields, which you CS types sell short. :p
- jbigelow76 15y ago
  Leave it to a physicist to make everyone aware of the gravity of the previous comment. :)
  - js2 15y ago
    http://xkcd.com/435/ http://xkcd.com/435/
- nl 15y ago
  Is this actually the case though? Isn't the physics of CPU design (quantum tunneling etc) just as complicated as that of a fusion reactor (or arguably more so?) If you meant that the behavior of the plasma itself is complex from the mathematical point of view.. yes, that is true. But it _is_ modeled (along with nuclear explosions) on one of those computer thing you physics type sell short. :P
  - neutronicus 15y ago
    Oh, solid state physics is plenty complicated. But in the regime where computers operate, you can successfully model the chip as a bunch of discrete signals and NAND gates and shit (ignorance showing through here). And, yes, I swept computational physics under the rug. Ironic, really, because that's my niche.

by bgraves 15y ago

neutronicus 15y ago

As a physicist, I really want to argue with that statement. In particular, computer hardware operates (by design) as far as possible from any regimes where the laws of physics are well and truly complicated. A tokamak fusion reactor, by contrast, although it breaks down into orders of magnitude fewer logical parts, contains a big blob of monolithic, continuous complexity, namely the plasma itself and all its associated electromagnetic fields, which you CS types sell short. :p

jbigelow76 15y ago
Leave it to a physicist to make everyone aware of the gravity of the previous comment. :)
- js2 15y ago
  http://xkcd.com/435/ http://xkcd.com/435/
nl 15y ago
Is this actually the case though? Isn't the physics of CPU design (quantum tunneling etc) just as complicated as that of a fusion reactor (or arguably more so?) If you meant that the behavior of the plasma itself is complex from the mathematical point of view.. yes, that is true. But it _is_ modeled (along with nuclear explosions) on one of those computer thing you physics type sell short. :P
- neutronicus 15y ago
  Oh, solid state physics is plenty complicated. But in the regime where computers operate, you can successfully model the chip as a bunch of discrete signals and NAND gates and shit (ignorance showing through here). And, yes, I swept computational physics under the rug. Ironic, really, because that's my niche.