deltasevennine

8 ms·

1.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
>If you feel the need to for personal attacks over a philosophical debate, where you consistently insist of understanding the other side wrong, No personal attack was conducted here. It's just you're sensitive. I mean I could t
2.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
The point is to learn. You know I'm not trolling. What I said was true. You were going off on tangents. It's the only logical conclusion.
3.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
In your universe nobody wins. Nothing is true, nothing is false. Consider yourself the ultimate loser.
4.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
What's wrong with absolutist statements? Nothing. I made an absolutist statement which is definitely true. You failed to prove it wrong. Instead you had to do the pathetic move of redefining the statement in order to get anywhere. You
5.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
I am from the camp that FP code produces much less tech debt then other forms of programming. But the problem here is that no one here can prove or disprove what I just said. And that is the point of my thread. In fact I believe tech debt i
6.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
>The problem with mapping paradigms to performance is that none of the paradigm purists care about performance, end of the day they care about theoretical purity. It's not theoretical purity. It's more tech debt. How do I code
7.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
>So you believe that the only way things can be compared is on quantitative measurements? Not with how they impress their users within whatever context they're in? No but I believe that quantitative measurements are the ONLY way to
8.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
>No, that's not the definition³. It is, I just worded it differently. See the "cognitive biases" part on your citation. They use "reality" in place of what I mean by "unaware". If you think something in
9.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
Yeah I get it. But What I'm saying is that there are many times when nobody can truly prove which whether they're in the cargo cult or the other people are in the cargo cult. So programming is one such thing. There are stylistic c
10.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
Nope. You aren't listening to me. I am getting exactly what he's saying. What I am saying is that the cargo culters could be right. You don't know. Nobody knows. Additionally he DID say that the approaches were all tools in a
11.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
Sure. I simply use this "world" example because everyone here is in the same cult as me: "The world is round cult." When I use it, they get it. If I were speaking to a different cult, I would use a different example. You
12.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
>I do not see where he did that. He argued simply that context matters. (And yes a "bad" tool can be the right tool, if it is the only tool avaiable.) Well I see it. If you don't see it, I urge you to reread what he said.
13.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
>No, that's impossible. "Truly good" or "truly bad" are moral categories. Something closely related to religion, BTW… Wrong. Good and bad is used in a fuzzy way here, I'm OBVIOUSLY not talking about morality
14.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
You did argue for everything is the same. Basically by "same" I mean everything is "equally good" depending on context. The whole hammers are for hammering and screwdrivers are for screwing thing... I explicitly said you
15.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
It is rude, but it is reasonable. When a child acts unruly and immature he must be disciplined with a forceful hand. I called you out harshly and the harshness was fucking deserved, no matter how miffed you get about it. I mean you expect m
16.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
This is the problem. You didn't even read my argument. Go read it again, carefully, instead of skimming through it. My point is: Maybe one of these religions is right. Maybe something is the best. Maybe a side must be picked. You didn&
17.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
This opinion is also biased. We have no theoretical method for determining which design philosophy is better than the other. We can't know whether the OOP religion is better, we also can't know if the Haskell religion is better, a
18.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
You seem to find lying "easy".
19.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
This speaks to your character. Not everyone finds lying easy regardless of whether it's allowed. Thank god I don't know you in rl.
20.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
Yeah you're probably right. Ill dive back into her book eventually. It's mostly the beginning chapters don't even get into the meat of CT quick enough. Instead it spends a lot of time justifying things. I feel It's writt
21.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
Well if teaching length justified the title of Maxwell's equations I would agree with you. CT does take longer to learn. However if foundational theory was what justified the title, I believe CT is more foundational then lambda calculu
22.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
I actually agree with you. Its not a good theory for finding optimal speed. I would say it's more of a better theory for optimal organization and reuse of code. It's a theory of interfaces. If programming is all about abstraction
23.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
There is no best mental tool. This is design, we don't have methods to converge on optimums. So you can't probably say any mental tool is better. It's all just different sets of primitives and category primitives, if you squi
24.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
Then your comment doesn't make sense to me. If you designed programs in haskell then you designed them using concepts from category theory. Category theory isn't just about how haskell works. You use it to design your programs. Ha
25.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
All of computation is related to types. You are taking Type A and converting it to Type B. That is the entire point of computation. All else is abstractions on top of that and algorithms below. Category theory is what lives on top. Haskell
26.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
elegance is a human attribute. Opinionated and open to interpretation. So Maxwells equations are an opinionated choice? I don't think so.
27.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
I read the first couple chapters. It's a bit too watered down in the beginning IMO. I couldn't get past the first part especially when she tries to relate category theory to feminism. Might come back to it later. As a non-math exp
28.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
Well if game of life is simpler, why not game of life? What does it mean to be Maxwells Equations? Does it mean absolutely most fundamental? Most practical? What? Maybe there's something more fundamental then turing. Thanks for the boo
29.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
I'm not an math expert. I hated math. I learned it off of very informal material: https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/10/28/category-theory-for-p... and his associated youtube videos (which are EVEN better)
30.
by deltasevennine 4y ago
lambda calculus is turing complete. But so are turing machines. So why not have turing machines be the Maxwells equations of software. Maybe there's an infinite amount of mathematical theories that are turing complete. Why is lambda ca

More ›