The Universal Data Structure
elbenshira.com
The Universal Data Structure
1–10 of 108 posts
Re: The Universal Data Structure
#2I wish they had used the word "map" in place of "hash" throughout this entire article. The use of hashes is an implementation detail and wholly irrelevant.
Re: The Universal Data Structure
#3This... this is just very, very dedicated satire, right?
Let's replace main memory with hash maps and then implement existing data structures on that.
Yes. This is satire.
Re: The Universal Data Structure
#4This... this is just very, very dedicated satire, right? Let's replace main memory with hash maps and then implement existing data structures on that . Yes. This is satire.
Also note that the post is tagged as 'bad-theory'
Re: The Universal Data Structure
#5Like a well trained Pavlov dog[1], reading the title brought "Lua table"[2] to my mind, the most flexible data structure I have worked with, by far.
Re: The Universal Data Structure
#6Basic had that. It was called arrays - yay for A$()
Re: The Universal Data Structure
#7Having read over the entire thing, I have only one issues with it: The Universal Hash structure is only universal if the language implementing it permits you to create cyclic structures, so you can manipulate the "pointers" or relevant language concept to create the cyclic structures. There are a handful of languages that don't permit that, such as Erlang, and some languages like Haskell that permit you to use "tying the knot" to create cyclic structures [1], but ones that can sometimes be difficult to manipulate after the fact.
In those languages, you'll probably need to use a data structure well known for its simplicity, efficiency, and broad cross-language-platform compatibility: The Resource Description Framework's graph model. Graphs are also a well-known candidate for "universal data structure" [2]. Also, it's semantic, which is a clear advantage over the entirely not semantic UniversalHash, because semantic is better than not semantic when it comes to universal semantics of semanticness.
Semantic.
Otherwise, the article is pretty solid and all serious developers should definitely consider implementing it forthwith, as they will find it a very, very educational experience. I know I've seen people implement this model in Java before, and I can certainly vouch for the fact that it was an education for all involved.
I'm going to say "semantic" one more time, because it's been my observation that the more you say it, the smarter you sound, so: semantic. Oh, yeah, that's the stuff. Mmmmmmmmm.
[1]: https://wiki.haskell.org/Tying_the_Knot
[2]: Seriously, if you really do want to discuss the "universal data structure", perhaps because you want to analyze data structures very generically for some mathematical reason, graphs really are a good candidate. Not necessarily RDF graphs, which are both bizarrely complicated while lacking simple features; the three blessed collection types are a weird combination of features.
Re: The Universal Data Structure
#8This is a perfect example of the kind of humor that belongs on HN. Actually had me nodding along in parts, then screwing up my face at others. By the time I was sure it was satire, I was committed enough to see it through to the end.
Best of all, I expect sincere discussion of the merits of the argument in this thread. Well executed, and heh heh.
Re: The Universal Data Structure
#9[deleted]
Re: The Universal Data Structure
#10This... this is just very, very dedicated satire, right? Let's replace main memory with hash maps and then implement existing data structures on that . Yes. This is satire.
Also note that the post is tagged as 'bad-theory'
"Unlike most academic work that has little to no practical implications, I think blindly following the stuff here will prove to be incalculably beneficial for you."