“Coding is basically just ifs and for loops.” • Hacker News Board

Re: “Coding is basically just ifs and for loops.”

#101

Post by reikonomusha » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

mbot5324 wrote: post #100

reikonomusha wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, there are no if+for, just compare and jump. Why don't we use what the metal uses, instead of these "expressive abstractions"? If+for have no deeper foundational significance in the construction of programs or computations, literally, than say a lambda function. But because the latter is unfamiliar, it's spoken about in the same manner you present: as if it is some highly abstract, complicating, high-level fea…

> as if it is some highly abstract, complicating, high-level feature But symbol calculus is a highly abstract, complicating, high-level system assembled out more reality-based systems beneath it. If it seems simple to you, you're just under the curse of knowledge.

I'm not sure what a "symbol calculus" is. Do you mean "lambda calculus"? I think that's a lot less complicated and abstract than a fabled machine with an infinite tape that's controlled by a transition graph of symbolic states. :)

And I don't know what a "reality-based system" is.

Re: “Coding is basically just ifs and for loops.”

#102

Post by makach » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 7:16 PM UTC

haha, it is! it is a wonderful experience when you make that realization. That's the point with programming. Easy to learn. Difficult to master.

Re: “Coding is basically just ifs and for loops.”

#103

Post by ojr » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 7:17 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #74

If you want to go even lower than that, coding is basically just saying yes or no in response to a yes or a no . Sure, that's oversimplifying it, but that's the smallest unit of information being changed during computation. But yes, once you learn the basics that are shared between most programming languages and don't get distracted by the nuances, it doesn't take that long to pick up a different language. Being prof…

yes, at the lowest level its binary code, 0 and 1

Re: “Coding is basically just ifs and for loops.”

#104

Post by makach » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 7:18 PM UTC

Thing with loops, they are complicated. Like infinity. I remember when someone taught me about multiple infinities. It is wonderful!

Re: “Coding is basically just ifs and for loops.”

#105

Post by CuriousCosmic » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 7:19 PM UTC

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #91

reikonomusha wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite being a joke, I know it's the "Ha Ha Only Serious" [0] sort. I can't help but think this is severely biased by the trends of "enterprise software," where you eventually "give up", and clock your 9–5 writing if+for making a fine living, but erroneously pass that off as a mature, Jedi-like way of thinking about programming, like the meme suggests. (And, consequently, you spend no less time debugging hairy, nest…

> you eventually "give up", and clock your 9–5 writing if+for making a fine living, but erroneously pass that off as a mature This comment sure indicates to me where you most likely are on the curve. In all seriousness, I think this is considerably off the mark. After enough experience you realize that expressivity and convenience are antipatterns and don't actually simplify things but are harbingers of complexity, b…

Personally I disagree. We should be using state machines and pure functions. If+for loops are just what's easiest to express in the major languages of today. they are no more or less computationally expensive but due to lack of tooling they are often cheaper to write.

In languages and libraries that allow FSM and pure functional kernel based designs you can get just as clear logic that is expressible not just to the programmer but also to business personnel. It's counter-intuitive to a certain extent because so much of programming is built around imperative programming but FSM based logic is and will continue to be easier to understand long term because you can trivially visualise it graphically. This ultimately is what a lot of the functional paradigm is built around. Use the mathematical and graphical representations we've used to understand systems for decades. They are well understood and most people can understand them with little to no additional education past what they learned in their business or engineering bachelors degrees.

Re: “Coding is basically just ifs and for loops.”

#106

Post by xyzzy_plugh » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 7:21 PM UTC

reikonomusha wrote: post #101

mbot5324 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as if it is some highly abstract, complicating, high-level feature But symbol calculus is a highly abstract, complicating, high-level system assembled out more reality-based systems beneath it. If it seems simple to you, you're just under the curse of knowledge.

I'm not sure what a "symbol calculus" is. Do you mean "lambda calculus"? I think that's a lot less complicated and abstract than a fabled machine with an infinite tape that's controlled by a transition graph of symbolic states. :) And I don't know what a "reality-based system" is.

You're confusing computer science with writing software to run on hardware. Coding requires the latter, but not the former.

Re: “Coding is basically just ifs and for loops.”

#107

Post by sharken » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

8ytecoder wrote: post #68

reikonomusha wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite being a joke, I know it's the "Ha Ha Only Serious" [0] sort. I can't help but think this is severely biased by the trends of "enterprise software," where you eventually "give up", and clock your 9–5 writing if+for making a fine living, but erroneously pass that off as a mature, Jedi-like way of thinking about programming, like the meme suggests. (And, consequently, you spend no less time debugging hairy, nest…

It’s just so sad that the lowest common denominator has become the standard now. When I first learnt Clojure it entirely changed the way I think and solve problems. The code really was elegant. Obviously, it can only be read by someone who can also understand programming beyond ifs and fors. That’s a non-starter in most environments - enterprise or otherwise. Funny enough, I see most innovations coming from consultan…

Ifs and fors are the easiest concepts to explain to non-developers, so it makes sense to start there.

I wouldn't say that they are the standard now, but using and mastering all features in a language is hard.

Add to that design patterns, classes and code layout it becomes a full-time job to keep up.

I have been in contact with code most of my professional life, but still isn't comfortable writing large amounts of code. The simple reason is that i don't do it full-time.

Here are the features in C# just to illustrate how complex a programming language is.

https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/c-sharp-versions/

Re: “Coding is basically just ifs and for loops.”

#108

Post by montalbano » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

ncann wrote: post #14

That first reply is so funny to me because it hits too close to home https://twitter.com/nice_byte/status/1466940940229046273 The more I do this, the more I gravitate towards the simple things.

Funny, I posted this on another HN thread [0] recently, but it's perfectly relevant again:

We shall not cease from exploration

And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started

And know the place for the first time.

T. S. Eliot - Little Gidding

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29043941

Re: “Coding is basically just ifs and for loops.”

#109

Post by Moodles » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

kevmo wrote: post #22

git is just a graph, man

I think it's funny that it's kind of like a blockchain, and as soon as the business people and MBAs realize this, they're going to "evangelize this amazing application of blockchain to all code!" to death.

Re: “Coding is basically just ifs and for loops.”

#110

Post by reikonomusha » Sat, Dec 04, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #106

reikonomusha wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what a "symbol calculus" is. Do you mean "lambda calculus"? I think that's a lot less complicated and abstract than a fabled machine with an infinite tape that's controlled by a transition graph of symbolic states. :) And I don't know what a "reality-based system" is.

You're confusing computer science with writing software to run on hardware. Coding requires the latter, but not the former.

Oof, and to think one could helpfully inform the other! :) To be clear, I am a programmer, not a computer scientist, so my opinions are based off writing code and managing teams to write code that works, and less so about abstract machinations of computer scientific thinking.