4 ms·

Sorry I was not clear enough here. I wanted to just add some historical context. My point is that dynamic programming was not "pigeonholed" because of "leetcod

by greyw 3y ago

Sorry I was not clear enough here. I wanted to just add some historical context. My point is that dynamic programming was not "pigeonholed" because of "leetcode enthusiasts" but rather they are just using the original meaning. Modern programming languages refering to "dynamic" things in various circumstances made the term confusing so you would have to blame modern programming languages rather than "leecode enthusiasts".

deaddodo 3y ago
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The term is perfectly fine, it's simply too generalized. So if other's want to use other terms to better describe it, I support that; no matter who was first. Otherwise we end up in another "systems programming" situation. My offhanded remark about "leetcode enthusiasts" is about people trying to strongarm/gatekeep a, frankly, way too generalized phrase to mean a very specific thing. They can call it that all they want. It's a correct phrase for that. Just don't get mad when someone else refers to "code morphing" as "dynamic programming". > Modern programming languages refering to "dynamic" things in various circumstances made the term confusing so you would have to blame modern programming languages rather than "leecode enthusiasts". Modern programmers and engineers used the word dictated for the functionality by the language they communicate in. You're just further reinforcing my point that the phrase is too generalized. Or, to give you an analogy that might finally make it click. It would be like if I called all "string metric" problems "string programming".
- FabHK 3y ago
  You're just wrong when you say > "dynamic programming" is an insanely general term It is not. It is a specific technique to solve a number of problems having a certain structure. In the continuous case it leads to the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman partial differential equation, in the discrete case it leads to the Bellman equation discussed above. The latter, in turn, gives rise to a specific and efficient algorithm. Code morphing has nothing to do with dynamic programming (even though it might well be programming, and might well be dynamic).
  - deaddodo 3y ago
    > You're just wrong when you say > "dynamic programming" is an insanely general term It literally is... I have no idea how you could even argue otherwise. So sure, let's agree to disagree on the basics of the English language.
    - FabHK 3y ago
      Sometimes two words are put together in an expression that does not mean what the two words seem to imply. For example, a hot dog is not a dog that is hot. The theory of finite fields is not applicable to agriculture, even though the fields they cultivate are finite. And dynamic programming is not an insanely general term referring to all programming that has some dynamic element to it.
      - deaddodo 3y ago
        Like I said, agree to disagree on the basics of the language; which is usually a conversation closer. Feel free to talk to a wall from here on out, if you insist on getting the last word in.

by greyw 3y ago

deaddodo 3y ago

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The term is perfectly fine, it's simply too generalized. So if other's want to use other terms to better describe it, I support that; no matter who was first. Otherwise we end up in another "systems programming" situation. My offhanded remark about "leetcode enthusiasts" is about people trying to strongarm/gatekeep a, frankly, way too generalized phrase to mean a very specific thing. They can call it that all they want. It's a correct phrase for that. Just don't get mad when someone else refers to "code morphing" as "dynamic programming". > Modern programming languages refering to "dynamic" things in various circumstances made the term confusing so you would have to blame modern programming languages rather than "leecode enthusiasts". Modern programmers and engineers used the word dictated for the functionality by the language they communicate in. You're just further reinforcing my point that the phrase is too generalized. Or, to give you an analogy that might finally make it click. It would be like if I called all "string metric" problems "string programming".

FabHK 3y ago
You're just wrong when you say > "dynamic programming" is an insanely general term It is not. It is a specific technique to solve a number of problems having a certain structure. In the continuous case it leads to the Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman partial differential equation, in the discrete case it leads to the Bellman equation discussed above. The latter, in turn, gives rise to a specific and efficient algorithm. Code morphing has nothing to do with dynamic programming (even though it might well be programming, and might well be dynamic).
- deaddodo 3y ago
  > You're just wrong when you say > "dynamic programming" is an insanely general term It literally is... I have no idea how you could even argue otherwise. So sure, let's agree to disagree on the basics of the English language.
  - FabHK 3y ago
    Sometimes two words are put together in an expression that does not mean what the two words seem to imply. For example, a hot dog is not a dog that is hot. The theory of finite fields is not applicable to agriculture, even though the fields they cultivate are finite. And dynamic programming is not an insanely general term referring to all programming that has some dynamic element to it.
    - deaddodo 3y ago
      Like I said, agree to disagree on the basics of the language; which is usually a conversation closer. Feel free to talk to a wall from here on out, if you insist on getting the last word in.