When I complained about how ill-defined "simple" was, a lot of people pointed me to Hickey's "simple made easy". Here's a challenge about that: Provide code that is simple but not easy. Then provide code in the same language, doing the same thing, that is easy but not simple.
-
-
And to the extent that it's not reliable, we can describe when we expect it to be unreliable and what the odds are. Someone might argue that this is equivalent to "understanding", but that's your point, I think -- the talk is so vague it can mean whatever you want.
-
He has this idea that composing simple components is the way to make robust systems and that abstractions over complexity are worthless.Sounds reasonable, but we manage to build reliable chips even though the underlying physical mechanics we abstract over are tremendously complexpic.twitter.com/ESbBbYQKgB
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
An example I particularly like: we're still not fully certain on why bicycles don't fall down. https://idisk-srv1.mpi-cbg.de/~diez/test.pdf
-
I'll have to find the source to make sure I remember correctly, but last I heard there were three known factors to bike stability, and we hadn't invented a stable bike which had none of the three. Maybe I misremember, or maybe the third was discovered after 2011.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.