4 ms·
Perhaps a softer but less-brittle version of this might be: 1. It is possible to define "programs" as an immutable abstraction, much like how "123+456" exists
by Terr_ 2y ago
Perhaps a softer but less-brittle version of this might be:
1. It is possible to define "programs" as an immutable abstraction, much like how "123+456" exists even if I decide not to do the calculation. In this view, we don't mutate our programs so much as we pick a different one to execute instead.
2. We create formal programs in code in response to discovering informal "programs" implemented in people.
- Dylan16807 2y agoNumber 1 is just a library of babel argument. Every sentence that could ever exist can be enumerated in a giant list. That doesn't mean that creation ceases to exist and everything is actually discovery. Number 2 seems overly dismissive of the work of crafting the informal version.
- Terr_ 2y ago> > in response to discovering > overly dismissive of the work of crafting the informal version I disagree, if anything it's the opposite and "we made new program X in-response-to existing process Y" is downright meek. It never suggests that anyone is capable of fully replicating or even understanding Y, nor does it say X is even good enough to partially replace it... it's simply why they started a project.