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.
-
-
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
-
The big productivity boosts have been abstractions that hide but don't eliminate underlying complexity. Gate-level design instead of transistor-level design, RTL instead of schematic capture, synthesis instead of doing raw circuit design, etc.
-
Later, he says you should just use data structures because they're "simple". Imagining the same idea in EE: no gates, only do layout because it's simpler. Metal, poly, and n/p-wells are "simple", why complicate things with gates? We're EEs, it's all physical layout in the end.pic.twitter.com/uEiZ1CY7Zk
-
As for software, why have data structures? Memory is actually very simple. There are not a tremendous number of variations in the essential nature of memory. There are locations that contain addresses. There are locations that contain values. There are not a lot of other concep
- 2 more replies
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.