Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Mathematical Hacker

evanmiller.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: The Mathematical Hacker

#51

Post by [deleted] »

irahul wrote: post #27
lmm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At university in 2005 I studied Mathematics and Computer Science in my first year, hoping for a path into theoretical computer science (e.g. complexity theory). I couldn't find one; mathematics had its discrete side, and made use of programs in many areas, but was uninterested in the theory of computation; computer science was mostly java training (I chose mathematics). So I'm pleased if such research is going on, be…

> I couldn't find one; mathematics had its discrete side, and made use of programs in many areas, but was uninterested in the theory of computation; computer science was mostly java training (I chose mathematics). I don't understand why schools do that. There is so much to know and learn in computer science course, yet somehow learning j2ee takes precedence above everything else.

[deleted]

Re: The Mathematical Hacker

#52

Post by pekk »

oinksoft wrote: post #45
michaelochurch wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mathematics isn't about numbers or even proofs. It's about simplifying until you get that class of problems down to a conceptual "nub", while thinking in a very rigorous way. Instead of five oranges plus nine oranges being 14 oranges, you just say 5 + 9 = 14, and that applies to any countable quantity. It's because of these abstractions that we can predict the motions of planets or build computers. This also explains…

What is this `FactoryVistor' straw man and why do we assume that its behavior is not referentially transparent?

I imagine it is the problem endemic to the culture of some languages, where tons of clunky boilerplate is built around a task which can be done much simpler, so that most of the code is about some contentious, cargo-cult methodology or dogma rather than the problem that is being solved.

If you were writing a virtual guestbook for a company which has many factories, you would have an excellent reason for having objects with names like FactoryVisitor.

Re: The Mathematical Hacker

#53

Post by jbooth »

irahul wrote: post #27
lmm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At university in 2005 I studied Mathematics and Computer Science in my first year, hoping for a path into theoretical computer science (e.g. complexity theory). I couldn't find one; mathematics had its discrete side, and made use of programs in many areas, but was uninterested in the theory of computation; computer science was mostly java training (I chose mathematics). So I'm pleased if such research is going on, be…

> I couldn't find one; mathematics had its discrete side, and made use of programs in many areas, but was uninterested in the theory of computation; computer science was mostly java training (I chose mathematics). I don't understand why schools do that. There is so much to know and learn in computer science course, yet somehow learning j2ee takes precedence above everything else.

Using Java as a language to teach about data structures and algorithms is one thing, centering the curriculum on a bunch of J2EE crap is entirely another.

You can make a case for using Java to teach about data structures, and if your alternative is C++, that case is pretty solid. If your alternative is C or Python, both sides can be argued.

Teaching J2EE at uni isn't CS education, it's poorly-aimed vocational education.

Re: The Mathematical Hacker

#54

Post by jbooth »

jrajav wrote: post #28
xaa wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, though, FP is perhaps the worst programming paradigm for actually performing numerical computations.

Mathematica borrows heavily from FP and is well known for its computational performance. And yes, a lot of its guts are imperative, but most of the internal libraries that encapsulate the actual mathematical concepts are written in Mathematica itself.

Those guts that 'actually perform numerical calculations' as referenced by the above post are not only imperative, they're in Fortran, the language of Real Programmers.

Many packages have successfully used FP as a layer over those calculations, but that doesn't invalidate the original point you're replying to. Calling functions to add numbers is in fact that worst possible paradigm for performing the actual numerics.

Re: The Mathematical Hacker

#55

Post by frozenport »

michaelochurch wrote: post #33

I'm in the Yegge school, so far as I think that the mathematical ignorance and, more generally, anti-intellectualism of our industry is its downfall. We see it in the lack of design sense and the awful code that is produced. VisitorFactory nonsense is something that was invented by people who hated math and wanted to tear programming away from its mathematical/problem-solving roots with a bunch of junk complexity tha…

There aren't enough humans that can do math, and there are more openings for jobs than intellectuals.

Programming is not necessarily a job for intellectuals, any more than painting or automotive repair is reserved for intellectuals. Have you heard of the balmer peak? This stuff we call code ain't that hard.

I don't like your complexity argument. If you are a gear in a watch you do not deal with complexity. You are well insulated, dealing with your 1 or 2 immediate neighbors. Most programmers are gears, they are attempting to deal with the complexity inherent in your company is a great way to procrastinate, waste time remaking the build system, and get fired. I am sure we have all see this happen.

Re: The Mathematical Hacker

#56

Post by sdfqwer »

The mere fact that SICP (Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs) and SICM (Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics) were written by the same person should be enough to give the lie to Miller's thesis.

Although willful ignorance of math is clearly a problem among certain segments of industry, it's just plainly not true in general and certainly doesn't correlate with lisp.

Re: The Mathematical Hacker

#57

Post by cs702 »

This rings True to me.

It also represents potentially really good news, because it means that we are probably at the beginning of a huge wave of wealth creation as we figure out how to apply mathematical knowledge to the massive growing mountains of data generated by everyone and everything everywhere.

Think about the historical impact that statistical-quality-control software has had in manufacturing, or the impact that economic-forecasting-and-optimization software has had in farming, or the impact that 'linear programming' software has had in supply-chain management and logistics; and then extrapolate these past achievements to get a sense of the potential impact that applications of mathematical knowledge could have in an everyone-connected, everything-networked, everything-measured world.

Exciting times.

Re: The Mathematical Hacker

#58

Post by aGHz »

michaelochurch wrote: post #33

I'm in the Yegge school, so far as I think that the mathematical ignorance and, more generally, anti-intellectualism of our industry is its downfall. We see it in the lack of design sense and the awful code that is produced. VisitorFactory nonsense is something that was invented by people who hated math and wanted to tear programming away from its mathematical/problem-solving roots with a bunch of junk complexity tha…

The part about us being teachers more than engineers or programmers jumped at me. I've long held the belief that code should be written far more for those reading it than for the machine executing it. Your comment builds on that and made me think of this mantra: "The machine executing my code to produce an application is a side-effect. The main purpose of my code is to teach others how I control the machine into producing the application".

This, of course, holds in a setting where multiple people work together to build a sizeable codebase. There are many other settings where adopting this mantra would be counter-productive.

Re: The Mathematical Hacker

#59

Post by pmelendez »

> "If you are a systems and network programmer like Raymond, you can do your job just fine without anything more than multiplication and an occasional modulus. "

So a systems programmer would never use a tree, a heap or any not trivial data structure? Since when graph theory is not part of math? I am with the author on this, those statements are fairly simplistic. In my experience, a strong math background is the difference between an A and a B/C programmer.

Post reply on HN