hzhou321

32 ms·

271.
by hzhou321 10y ago
It is simply due to apprenticeship. Physicists do research, and their code is research code. Like most other research, the research code is maintained and used in-house. As most in-house non-shared code (in any language), it is impenetrable
272.
by hzhou321 10y ago
The undeniable fact is that there will be a case for any scenario, and that fact is the essential driver for code inflation. You can't shed the code since that code is there for a potential case; and you can't help adding code as
273.
by hzhou321 10y ago
He keeps stating the case of one-element ring buffer. Is that a real concern ever?
274.
by hzhou321 10y ago
The first version always leaves a "clean" state, that is both indices points to actual array locations. A mentally "clean" state makes understanding easier. For the third version one has to keep in mind the wrap around b
275.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Math is about given the definition and understand the results through consistency. For example, given the set of Maxwell's equation and a set of boundary condition, figuring out or understanding the solution -- that is mathematics. So
276.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Acknowledge and embracing the assumption that the speed of light is a universal constant -- disregard of reference frame? And as a consequence, allowing space and time to curve? That is not a small fix. That is a fundamental faith jump.
277.
by hzhou321 10y ago
It took a while even after the experiment was repeated a couple times. And even after the experiment only very few could abandon the idea of ether, and only after abandon the idea of ether, they see the new physics. Now with dark matter, we
278.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Remember "ether"? I am bothered because it does confuse physicists.
279.
by hzhou321 10y ago
This is good. Dark matter has always in my eye so similar to the God hypothesis that we conjure something that is mysterious with undefined but whatever necessary to explain away the discrepancy or mystery. Acknowledging that we don'
280.
by hzhou321 10y ago
I wouldn't go out and say Einstein is a rounding error :). When we say science progress is built on top of giant's shoulder, that giant don't have to be and often is not just other/previous scientists. Engineering, cultu
281.
by hzhou321 10y ago
I won't deny the reality of modern day science worker. But the fact of they are paid/respected at minimum does not justify their motivation. Just like a typical minimum wage worker is not doing the work out of pleasure, a typical
282.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Historically scientists are lonely people who are (mostly) motivated by seeking truth or knowledge and satisfying curiosity instead of money or fame. Most people are practical and are motivated by money or fame more than satisfying curiosit
283.
by hzhou321 10y ago
You can't always use results to justify cause. Given the situation that most adults (even with higher education) are not good at math (possibly due to the failure of education) -- in particular, most adults are infused with the percept
284.
by hzhou321 10y ago
(I again find myself on the other side of most comments) I think it is obvious that we think in a language, or more specifically the vocabulary. Try to imagine thinking without language (yes, you can do it), e.g. think about an apple. When
285.
by hzhou321 10y ago
A lot of statements in this article aligns well with that of MyDef: https://www.gitbook.com/book/huizhou/programming-with-mydef/... The ideal of MyDef is actually have each programmer customize and maintain t
286.
by hzhou321 10y ago
Efficiency is measured by cost and result. Doing nothing end up with no result, how is that "most efficient"? And what is the definition of effectiveness? ... maybe the word you are looking for is convenience?
287.
by hzhou321 10y ago
If there is a universal, relatively simple formula for general efficiency, then compilers may be constructed with such algorithm to render certain language more efficient than other. Alas, there is no such thing. Efficiency, as current situ
288.
by hzhou321 11y ago
Of course we still need software engineers troll SO :).
289.
by hzhou321 11y ago
So it proves that the concept of irrational number is rather useless in practice ...
290.
by hzhou321 11y ago
It is the KISS principle.
291.
by hzhou321 11y ago
I deal with binary data all the time and I just use fwrite in C and pack in Perl, and a text readme in vim explaining the (simple) format. I don't use Matlab but often need exchange the data with Matlab user; I simply search help page
292.
by hzhou321 11y ago
In the old days, researchers measure the charge of electron with oil drop, and figure out what is gravity with pen and paper. I guess nowadays researchers have to spend million dollar on a electron microscope to look at anything and have to
293.
by hzhou321 11y ago
Not exactly :). If we think a programming language as a person, its syntax layer is like the person's look. The person will have a look even without any clothes but the clothes can change his look (syntax matters). JVM is more like the
294.
by hzhou321 11y ago
>> m4...doesn't assume anything about the underlying text. I don't think there is anything wrong for the meta layer (syntax layer) to make certain assumptions/restriction for the underlying language layer; and there is
295.
by hzhou321 11y ago
That is what we call fashion . With the bandwidth and CPU/monitor power, the utility part is no longer in focus, so fashion part dominates. Fashion do not need to make sense. Sensible folks (the minority part of family) may choose t
296.
by hzhou321 11y ago
Yes, syntax matters. What is in question is why syntax has to be so tightly bound to intrinsics of a language? I think it is possible to have a meta layer above any programming language that can bridge particular flavor of the syntax of you
297.
by hzhou321 11y ago
Linux' philosophy (generally open source') is to create a paradise for hackers and it has accomplished that and it should be content at it. GUI desktop is for consumers who are opposite to hackers. Trying to meet both ends are sil
298.
by hzhou321 11y ago
If we observe how us human communicate, we see a lot of guessing. Human languages are all ambiguous and their great efficiency depend on (intuitive) guesses -- in expensive guesses. We make guesses as we listen/read, but we do not comm
299.
by hzhou321 11y ago
First of all, what do we think is literate programming? * Is it just interspersing documentations with the code? * or Is it an idea of writing code in the style of communications? There is subtle difference. The former is writing code first
300.
by hzhou321 11y ago
It appears to be (realtime) server rendered svg.

More ›