Programming thread

Programmers are idiots, in general. Don't trust them.

Yeah, I wouldn't deny that.

Computer hardware is the pinnacle of human engineering, and is imperfect purely as a result of existing physically

I wouldn't deny that either. My point is that both hardware and software have acceptable tolerances. You could spend time and money making a program absolutely perfect... or you could instead spend the resources on making something else.

I suppose the Chinese and Indians become the best humans by this same reasoning, since they're most numerous, right?

Yeah, as I suspected, you've no idea why APL failed. Neither do I, but I'm not shilling it. Maybe it was a conspiracy by Big Semicolon or something.
 
Don't worry, this brainwashing usually wears off the moment you've graduated from undergrad.
Maybe, or maybe then you go to grad school to study lambda calculus forever and work on your new functional language that compiles down into something as fast as C and will finally topple those noxious imperative-paradigm graybeards once and for all!!
 
Programming isn't engineering
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Nothing you'd be ever told to code would be a pure mathematical task, and even if you are in a mathematic field you'd be told to optimise a task for a decent approximation rather than solving it since someone already wrote a code that solves it twenty years ago.
 
Yeah, as I suspected, you've no idea why APL failed. Neither do I, but I'm not shilling it. Maybe it was a conspiracy by Big Semicolon or something.
Alright. In the book Coders at Work is an interview with a woman named Fran Allen, who worked on compiler optimizations. Here's a section from pages 501 and 502:
Seibel: When do you think was the last time that you programmed?

Allen: Oh, it was quite a while ago. I kind of stopped when C came out. That was a big blow. We were making so much good progress on optimizations and transformations. We were getting rid of just one nice problem after another. When C came out, at one of the SIGPLAN compiler conferences, there was a debate between Steve Johnson from Bell Labs, who was supporting C, and one of our people, Bill Harrison, who was working on a project that I had at that time supporting automatic optimization.

The nubbin of the debate was Steve's defense of not having to build optimizers anymore because the programmer would take care of it. That it was really a programmer's issue. The motivation for the design of C was three problems they couldn't solve in the high-level languages: One of them was interrupt handling. Another was scheduling resources, taking over the machine and scheduling a process that was in the queue. And a third one was allocating memory. And you couldn't do that from a high-level language. So that was the excuse for C.

Seibel: Do you think C is a reasonable language if they had restricted its use to operating-system kernels?

Allen: Oh, yeah. That would have been fine. And, in fact, you need to have something like that, something where experts can really fine-tune without big bottlenecks because those are key problems to solve.

By 1960, we had a long list of amazing languages: Lisp, APL, Fortran, COBOL, Algol 60. These are higher-level than C. We have seriously regressed, since C developed. C has destroyed our ability to advance the state of the art in automatic optimization, automatic parallelization, automatic mapping of a high-level language to the machine. This is one of the reasons compilers are ... basically not taught much anymore in the colleges and universities.

Seibel: Surely there are still courses on building a compiler?

Allen: Not in lots of schools. It's shocking. there are still conferences going on, and people doing good algorithms, good work, but the payoff for that is, in my opinion, quite minimal. Because languages like C totally overspecify the solution of problems. Those kinds of languages are what is destroying computer science as a study.

Idiots misuse computers. Anyone on this website knows that. Anyway, APL hasn't failed. GNU and Dyalog have implementations, and derivatives of the language are apparently used in finance. I'll need to write the implementations of some languages that interest me, and those could be said to be closer to death.

Don't worry, this brainwashing usually wears off the moment you've graduated from undergrad.
I'm entirely self-taught.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Nothing you'd be ever told to code would be a pure mathematical task, and even if you are in a mathematic field you'd be told to optimise a task for a decent approximation rather than solving it since someone already wrote a code that solves it twenty years ago.
Gluing together libraries is like some engineering, I suppose, but it's still manipulating mathematical pieces. All of it is applied mathematics.
 
Programming isn't engineering; programming is mathematics, and perfection is expected with mathematics.
No, moron, programming is automation, you said it yourself earlier. Automation is expected to work well enough to get the job done.

To borrow your other retarded analogy, cooking is not food preparation, cooking is chemistry, and you're expected to fucking starve to death or gnaw on raw deer legs if you can't achieve some retard's idea of perfection.
 
someone whose degree didn't appear to include English.
1671034363066.png
 
Back