31–40 of 129 posts
Quadtrees are neat. Though I guess general purpose image processing would be better served by either raster or vector representation. Maybe a better showcase would be something like collision detection or geospatial indexing.
http://raganwald.com/hashlife/
But yes, I’d love to read more about things like collision detection and geospatial indexing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering that TFA pokes fun at the word in the very first footnote, I took this comment to be mostly in jest. But if we’re going to be serious about it, technical jargon is really only appropriate when the speaker is 100% sure the audience 100% understands it. There is sometimes a problem (I wouldn't use personal terms to describe it, but still) where technical terms are slung about without regard for whether peop…
You're correct. I was trying to make a joke. Didn't go over very well. So it goes.
That was a lot of words to say "because the languages we use to solve problems is naturally recursive."
I love the word "isomorphic". It's by far the most efficient word in the English language. When someone else uses it in conversation, it's absolutely guaranteed that the person is a pretentious asshole. When you use it in a conversation, the same is also true. It's only ever acceptable in written contexts or if you happen to be Douglas Hofstadter.
> When someone else uses it in conversation, it's absolutely guaranteed that the person is a pretentious asshole. I don't get your angle here. You realise an isomorphism is actually a well-defined mathematical concept, right? Are you advocating we use another, plainer word for an isomorphism, or do just naturally get angry when you hear words you don't understand?
What a con artist. Moving on.
I stopped reading at the first sentence when he improperly used `isomorphic`. I thought it made no sense at all so I looked up the footnote... just to get a big middle finger from the author. What a con artist. Moving on.
I stopped reading at the first sentence when he improperly used `isomorphic`. I thought it made no sense at all so I looked up the footnote... just to get a big middle finger from the author. What a con artist. Moving on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When someone else uses it in conversation, it's absolutely guaranteed that the person is a pretentious asshole. I don't get your angle here. You realise an isomorphism is actually a well-defined mathematical concept, right? Are you advocating we use another, plainer word for an isomorphism, or do just naturally get angry when you hear words you don't understand?
Considering that TFA pokes fun at the word in the very first footnote, I took this comment to be mostly in jest. But if we’re going to be serious about it, technical jargon is really only appropriate when the speaker is 100% sure the audience 100% understands it. There is sometimes a problem (I wouldn't use personal terms to describe it, but still) where technical terms are slung about without regard for whether peop…
Words exist for a reason. They allow precision, brevity, and – as Reginald so often shows – beauty. I expect readers to be willing to right-click an unknown word and quickly learn its meaning.
I'd also expect programmers to know what isomorphic means. Heck, you could even guess it: iso, like the standards. Morph as in morphology, "shape".