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.
-
-
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 -
-
-
For software, I'm with Ousterhout (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39996759-a-philosophy-of-software-design …) - complexity is going to be somewhere; you win if you can corral a bunch of it in one place and present a simple interface to it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If only there was a discipline studying complexity it could perhaps tell us that the effort required to understand the composition A₁ ∘…∘Aₙ is not only not polynomial in n, but not even exponential. Actually, there *is* a discipline that's shown us that: computer science.
-
Of course, such results mean that all conversations on the virtues of different kinds of composition are no more than hand-waiving, and, at best, empirical (which would actually be great, but almost none of them are).
- 3 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.