4 ms·

"You have to do basic science on your libraries to see how they work, trying out different inputs and seeing how the code reacts." Is this not an atrocity, to b

"You have to do basic science on your libraries to see how they work, trying out different inputs and seeing how the code reacts." Is this not an atrocity, to be fought to the last bullet?" I think it's an acceptance of reality. There is a phase change when systems become too complex for a single human to ever understand them in their entirety. Dealing with systems at that level is a different beast than dealing with simpler systems where "what you see is all there is". "What creativity can there be when your medium is shit mixed with sawdust?" The same sort of creativity artists possess, who work with media that are idiosyncratic. It's a different mindset. I see the reddit-gen programmers talk about things on a completely meta-level. To them, MySql is the hardware. Is it a bad thing? Not necessarily. Some of them hopefully will dig down the stack and be the low-level heroes. But that should (and probably can) only be a small percentage. Now I guess one could argue that those sorts of heroes are what MIT is supposed to produce, but as has been mentioned, this course is not just for CS students. So the real question is, can the CS heroes of tomorrow survive an introductory course in Python? Well, consider that they have probably been modding games since 10, hacking PhP at 12, realizing at 14 they need to learn a 'real' language (C#, Ruby, Python), by 15 I bet they've abstracted out the fact that languages are not all that important; they're just the tip of the iceberg of complexity. So yes, I think they will survive.

asciilifeform 18y ago
>I think it's an acceptance of reality. All of technological progress consists of refusing to roll over and "accept reality" - instead, attacking it and modifying it to suit our needs. >There is a phase change when systems become too complex for a single human to ever understand them in their entirety. This is how innovation dies. The disease is preventable: http://naggum.no/erik/complexity.html http://naggum.no/erik/complexity.html > To them, MySql is the hardware. Is it a bad thing? Yes! It is. A programmer's finite mental capacity for dealing with complexity is consumed by an ever-greater load of accidental complexity - inconsistencies in the medium learning about which teaches you nothing. They are holes in reality. The thing that made modern technology possible is that physics, chemistry, etc. do not have "bugs." A correctly set up experiment will yield the same results when done a week from now, in Australia, etc. And in the end, there are unifying principles governing it, which will explain everything that happened in a way that teaches you something permanent. A medium with "holes", like a buggy programming system, is a universe where "science does not work": http://xkcd.com/298/ http://xkcd.com/298/ > Some of them hopefully will dig down the stack Wading in sewage. > languages are not all that important This statement is true when the languages are all equally crippled - as they increasingly are, through their reliance on an ever-sinking foundation of 35-year-old rotting OS.
- danbmil99 18y ago
  I believe I categorically disagree with every point you make. You are pissing in the wind if you think you can treat a system with 100M LOC the same way you wrote assembly on a 6502. They are different beasts, with totally different emergent properties. It's like claiming that you can understand the weather if you just stick to thinking about individual molecules. [edit:] I believe the xkcd strip can be read two ways. Unknowable complexity equals magic (a riff on Arthur C Clarke). I strongly believe that exactly what's been wrong about software is our clinging to the idea that it is reducible and manageable. We don't think that way when we work in the physical world; we do rely on science, but it's empirical science, with statistically useful models at appropriate levels of abstraction. We don't rely on quantum mechanics to build bridges.
  - asciilifeform 18y ago
    > you are pissing in the wind if you think you can treat a system with 100M LOC the same way you wrote assembly on a 6502 I would be, if I actually believed that it is possible given current technology. However, I believe that the problem is technological rather than fundamental, and that we can arrive at a solution. Let me give you an example of a problem that was once thought to be fundamental and inescapable yet ceased to be viewed as such. Before the advent of high-quality structural steel, no building (save a pyramid) could exceed five stories or so in height. Towards the end of the 19th century, metallurgy advanced, and the limit vanished. I believe that we are facing a similar situation with knowledge. The conventional wisdom is that the era of "encyclopedic intellects" (and now, human-comprehensible software) is gone forever due to the brain's limited capacity for handling complexity. Yet I believe that the computer could do for mental power what steam engines did for muscle power. I am not alone in this belief - here are some pointers to recommended reading, by notables such as Doug Engelbart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_amplification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_amplification Additionally: why do you assume that any system built to date necessarily must contain 100M LOC? Does this not in itself suggest that we are doing something wrong? > clinging to the idea that it is reducible and manageable All of technological civilization rests on the assumption that the universe is ultimately "reducible" to knowable facts and "manageable" in the sense of being amenable to manipulation (or at least, understanding). The alternative is the capricious and anthropomorphic universe imagined by primitive tribes, run according to the whim of the gods rather than physical law. > We don't rely on quantum mechanics to build bridges I must disagree here. QM is entirely relevant to the science of material strength, which is ultimately a branch of metallurgy - arguably a discipline of applied chemistry. In any legitimate science, there really are "turtles all the way down." And when there is a discontinuity in the hierarchy of understanding - say, the situation in physics with the need to reconcile general relativity and QM - it is viewed as a situation to be urgently dealt with, rather than a dismal fate to accept and live with forever. A computer, unlike the planet's atmosphere, is a fully deterministic system. It is an epic surrender to stupidity if we start treating programming the way we treat weather prediction - as something that is not actually expected to reliably work in any reasonable sense of the word, or to obey any solid mathematical principles. It is a disaster, to be fought.

asciilifeform 18y ago

>I think it's an acceptance of reality. All of technological progress consists of refusing to roll over and "accept reality" - instead, attacking it and modifying it to suit our needs. >There is a phase change when systems become too complex for a single human to ever understand them in their entirety. This is how innovation dies. The disease is preventable: http://naggum.no/erik/complexity.html http://naggum.no/erik/complexity.html > To them, MySql is the hardware. Is it a bad thing? Yes! It is. A programmer's finite mental capacity for dealing with complexity is consumed by an ever-greater load of accidental complexity - inconsistencies in the medium learning about which teaches you nothing. They are holes in reality. The thing that made modern technology possible is that physics, chemistry, etc. do not have "bugs." A correctly set up experiment will yield the same results when done a week from now, in Australia, etc. And in the end, there are unifying principles governing it, which will explain everything that happened in a way that teaches you something permanent. A medium with "holes", like a buggy programming system, is a universe where "science does not work": http://xkcd.com/298/ http://xkcd.com/298/ > Some of them hopefully will dig down the stack Wading in sewage. > languages are not all that important This statement is true when the languages are all equally crippled - as they increasingly are, through their reliance on an ever-sinking foundation of 35-year-old rotting OS.

danbmil99 18y ago
I believe I categorically disagree with every point you make. You are pissing in the wind if you think you can treat a system with 100M LOC the same way you wrote assembly on a 6502. They are different beasts, with totally different emergent properties. It's like claiming that you can understand the weather if you just stick to thinking about individual molecules. [edit:] I believe the xkcd strip can be read two ways. Unknowable complexity equals magic (a riff on Arthur C Clarke). I strongly believe that exactly what's been wrong about software is our clinging to the idea that it is reducible and manageable. We don't think that way when we work in the physical world; we do rely on science, but it's empirical science, with statistically useful models at appropriate levels of abstraction. We don't rely on quantum mechanics to build bridges.
- asciilifeform 18y ago
  > you are pissing in the wind if you think you can treat a system with 100M LOC the same way you wrote assembly on a 6502 I would be, if I actually believed that it is possible given current technology. However, I believe that the problem is technological rather than fundamental, and that we can arrive at a solution. Let me give you an example of a problem that was once thought to be fundamental and inescapable yet ceased to be viewed as such. Before the advent of high-quality structural steel, no building (save a pyramid) could exceed five stories or so in height. Towards the end of the 19th century, metallurgy advanced, and the limit vanished. I believe that we are facing a similar situation with knowledge. The conventional wisdom is that the era of "encyclopedic intellects" (and now, human-comprehensible software) is gone forever due to the brain's limited capacity for handling complexity. Yet I believe that the computer could do for mental power what steam engines did for muscle power. I am not alone in this belief - here are some pointers to recommended reading, by notables such as Doug Engelbart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_amplification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_amplification Additionally: why do you assume that any system built to date necessarily must contain 100M LOC? Does this not in itself suggest that we are doing something wrong? > clinging to the idea that it is reducible and manageable All of technological civilization rests on the assumption that the universe is ultimately "reducible" to knowable facts and "manageable" in the sense of being amenable to manipulation (or at least, understanding). The alternative is the capricious and anthropomorphic universe imagined by primitive tribes, run according to the whim of the gods rather than physical law. > We don't rely on quantum mechanics to build bridges I must disagree here. QM is entirely relevant to the science of material strength, which is ultimately a branch of metallurgy - arguably a discipline of applied chemistry. In any legitimate science, there really are "turtles all the way down." And when there is a discontinuity in the hierarchy of understanding - say, the situation in physics with the need to reconcile general relativity and QM - it is viewed as a situation to be urgently dealt with, rather than a dismal fate to accept and live with forever. A computer, unlike the planet's atmosphere, is a fully deterministic system. It is an epic surrender to stupidity if we start treating programming the way we treat weather prediction - as something that is not actually expected to reliably work in any reasonable sense of the word, or to obey any solid mathematical principles. It is a disaster, to be fought.