sklogic

75 ms·

841.
by sklogic 11y ago
No, this is not a new knowledge , and not a new information (as defined by the algorithmic information theory), it's a non-falsifiable piece of, well, probably art. For this very reason mathematics is not considered a science.
842.
by sklogic 11y ago
Being "mechanical" does not mean anything "easy". It's hard, nearly impossible, simply because the most formal definition of this process boils down to an exhaustive search in a huge (but finite) morphological box.
843.
by sklogic 11y ago
> Theories help us decide what to observe, or where to look and what we're looking at. Of course. But it's merely some heuristics helping to cut down the search space, not an inherent, fundamental property of the universe.
844.
by sklogic 11y ago
Of course, this process of extraction of information from a data is lossy, almost never lossless (in some purely classification sciences it may be discrete and lossless, but it's a totally different story). Data is not perfect, and the
845.
by sklogic 11y ago
Relativity theory fits well into this description. It (the special relativity) was derived from a formal attempt to unify classical mechanics and Maxwell electrodynamics, which was only possible if you ditch the Galilean relativity. Both cl
846.
by sklogic 11y ago
> collection of useless factoids We call it phenomenology . The very base of any proper science. The rest is just a mechanical work of eliminating the noise from this data. Science should never produce any knowledge which is not found
847.
by sklogic 11y ago
But all the reasoning should always be a direct consequence of the data. Not the other way around. Science, essentially, is nothing but a process of extracting information (as in the algorithmic information theory, not in Shannon sense) f
848.
by sklogic 11y ago
> Without abstraction there's only observation and no reasoning This is what the real science is. Observation and only observation. Reasoning is secondary and unimportant.
849.
by sklogic 11y ago
Only the real science approach ever works. If your "science" is using any other approach, it is not a science, period. And there is a proper, scientific approach in the economics: behavioural economics. Instead of hand waving abou
850.
by sklogic 11y ago
Was this "WASP venom" typo intentional?
851.
by sklogic 11y ago
And this is just another great argument for the basic income idea.
852.
by sklogic 11y ago
Misleading title. Doctors in the UK prescribe active components, not brands.
853.
by sklogic 11y ago
Now, if you add a realistic memory hierarchy model, it can be used for a far deeper performance analysis than the official OpenCL tools are providing.
854.
by sklogic 11y ago
I was looking for objectively measurable parameters. Lines of code, depth of nested constructs, average number of entities per functional block, code to documentation ratio, test coverage, bug history. Anything that can be expressed in numb
855.
by sklogic 11y ago
You sound like a religious adept. Open your eyes, just see the truth, blah-blah-blah. I asked for a very simple thing - a piece of code which is easy, robust and maintainable because of its use of OOP. All of the qualities are objective and
856.
by sklogic 11y ago
And how exactly patterns make life easier? Most of the classic OOP patterns are nothing but workarounds for the complexities introduced by using the OOP in the first place. Without OOP these problems would not exist at all. Why people are
857.
by sklogic 11y ago
I'd trade any language without macros to the same language, but with the proper macros added. And then I'll get all the features I want - lambdas, garbage collection, numeric tower, lazy evaluation, any imaginable type system, wha
858.
by sklogic 11y ago
> It's kind handy for using other peoples code. The heavily OOP libraries with deep hierarchies are the least pleasant to use. With all those horrible enterprisey FactoryFactoryFactoryFactories, etc. Flat, fluent, ideally DSLish API
859.
by sklogic 11y ago
Could you please point to a classic example of a good OOP design, where it is clear that OOP made it simpler.
860.
by sklogic 11y ago
> it really can help you to lower the complexity of programs Yet to be proven. I never seen a single example of OOP bringing anything but more unnecessary complexity.
861.
by sklogic 11y ago
Good C++ is a generic C++. And generic programming is incompatible with OOP. Those who do not agree with this statement should stop using STL.
862.
by sklogic 11y ago
Exactly. It is never anywhere near anything OOP. More verbs, less nouns.
863.
by sklogic 11y ago
> In my my mind OOP is the next logical step after procedural programming Modules and namespaces are the next logical step. And they've got nothing to do with OOP and its dynamic dispatch, which is absolutely, totally illogical.
864.
by sklogic 11y ago
> OOP has some fantastic applications Yes, OOP is great for agent-based simulations. Only. This is a fantastic, exciting area, but it is extremely niche and tiny. Anywhere else, OOP is nothing but an obstacle.
865.
by sklogic 11y ago
This is exactly what mesh networks are for.
866.
by sklogic 11y ago
You did not answer, fanboy. Does Scala already allow to use macro in the same compilation unit it was defined?
867.
by sklogic 11y ago
> Then maybe you should maybe spend some time studying these topics instead of acting up on HN. Chances are, I implemented more varieties of type systems than you can name. > This is where I lost the last doubts about the reality and
868.
by sklogic 11y ago
Not quite. OO messages are flat (a method + a number of arguments), while a DSL messages can have a very complex semantics (even Turing-complete, if necessary). What is common with the Kay view of OO (and different from all the modern OO la
869.
by sklogic 11y ago
So now it's possible to use a Scala macro in the same module it's defined? Good. But then documentation is too much behind, and this is most certainly not good at all.
870.
by sklogic 11y ago
> Type systems are by-definition only a conservative approximation of all programs. This is where I lost a track of your arguments. > Ok, that leaves the failure of Lisp outside of hobbyist mom's basements a mystery. Lisp did not

More ›