mgummelt

13 ms·

91.
by mgummelt 6y ago
> This exposed Rob Pike's lack of experience in the area (IMHO) because anyone who had done any systems programming at all knew that garbage collection made any systems language a nonstarter. What exactly do you mean by systems prog
92.
by mgummelt 6y ago
Well, no. The lambda calculus isn't imperative.
93.
by mgummelt 6y ago
Harvard Medical says that dosage is potentially unsafe: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/taking-too-mu...
94.
by mgummelt 6y ago
Text is much easier to skim than audio. Visual bandwidth is higher than auditory (though less so for communicating emotions), and the receiver has much more control over the cursor. Audio has some advantages, but it's limited.
95.
by mgummelt 6y ago
The author is incorrectly using the term "declarative" when he's really describing "imperative". Stateful OOP is in no way declarative. It's also unclear what the thesis is. He says to not ask objects about t
96.
by mgummelt 6y ago
This is standard for enterprise software, because there is no fixed price.
97.
by mgummelt 6y ago
They aren't incompatible. Conditionals can be modeled as data flows. See circuit design.
98.
by mgummelt 6y ago
Well, of course. That's a tautology.
99.
by mgummelt 6y ago
> It would be explained as text in a textbook, with ifs, whiles and variables assignations, not CFG / DFG prilitives. Then it's not functional programming. I'm asking specifically about functional programming.
100.
by mgummelt 6y ago
> When you're building a data or signal flow. All code, or at the very least functional code, can be directly mapped to a DFG. Should all functional programming be done visually?
101.
by mgummelt 6y ago
> I kind of assume the virus grows exponentially inside the body and would dwarf the initial constant. Perhaps a more mild initial growth stage gives the immune system more time to respond.
102.
by mgummelt 6y ago
> Why can't methods (for instance) get displayed as convenient, without worrying about where they are in the file? Get displayed as convenient what? > Limiting programs to fixed-width, single-font text also seems like a historica
103.
by mgummelt 6y ago
> being able to visually group or cluster related code Text can be grouped as well. > being able to use zoom in and zoom out to create 'region's of code visible from further out with large labels Can you elaborate on this?
104.
by mgummelt 6y ago
In what circumstances, generally speaking, do you think visual programming is more desirable than textual programming? Amateur programmers? Media production? Something else?
105.
by mgummelt 7y ago
I think that title must go to Excel.
106.
by mgummelt 7y ago
No, most Smalltalk objects were not Turing Complete. Take numbers. Numbers are objects in Smalltalk. They're not Turing Complete.
107.
by mgummelt 7y ago
The difference is that, in order to foster composition, the platform can't just be a VM. It must also provide the interfaces by which objects interact. Take Java. It's not just a VM. It's also the JDK/JCL.
108.
by mgummelt 7y ago
That's an interesting result, but you'll have to connect more dots for me. I don't see how the existence of a categorical theory of Actors relates to what we're discussing.
109.
by mgummelt 7y ago
Often, yes. Parameterization adds complexity, so for interactions I know must always be colocated, it makes sense to hard code the provisioning of a local actor.
110.
by mgummelt 7y ago
No, I mean the function (e.g. a C function) assumes a particular type of parameter. So it's bound to that type of parameter (by accessing its fields) in the same way a method is bound to its object. It's the same problem.
111.
by mgummelt 7y ago
For 10 years, people have been talking about REST as if it means something. I could never figure it out. If it means anything more than CRUD, it's lost on me.
112.
by mgummelt 7y ago
Latency differences aren't just a difference in degree. They're a difference in kind. Some interactions have to be sufficiently fast or they shouldn't happen at all. A runtime that minimizes global latency guarantees isn&#
113.
by mgummelt 7y ago
As I said, pick your definition of object (Java objects, Smalltalk objects, actor, etc.). Unless it's "Turing Complete machine", which isn't anyone's definition of object, you can't equate objects with compute
114.
by mgummelt 7y ago
FWIW, Fowler's "Monolith First" engineering idea is closely related to Christenson's "Modularity Theory" economic idea.
115.
by mgummelt 7y ago
> The function would not be tied to state and that function can be executed in the context of anything. Non-OOP functions are still written against the interface of their parameters, so they remain tied to state.
116.
by mgummelt 7y ago
Yes, an Actor (or object) can implement a Turing Machine. But most don't. Most are simpler machines. So this statement by Kay, for instance: "each Smalltalk object is a recursion on the entire possibilities of the computer.&quo
117.
by mgummelt 7y ago
As usual with Alan Kay, it's difficult to understand exactly what he's advocating for. On the one hand, he laments browsers having features, and thinks they should just execute code safely and provide a low level graphics interfa
118.
by mgummelt 7y ago
I don't have a precise definition, but regardless which of the many candidate definitions you choose, none are "mini-computers". A computer, if that term is to mean anything at all, is Turing Complete. It's a machine t
119.
by mgummelt 7y ago
What does this have to do with Kay's claim that objects are "mini-computers"?
120.
by mgummelt 7y ago
> no component standardization This one is interesting because Alan Kay is so expressly against it ("browsers shouldn't have features"). He thinks every object should just render itself as a bitmap. Besides, browsers do h

More ›