@Partiallybright: “If you really want to communicate your ideas, transfer them all the way to another brain, you would try harder to present them so that almost anyone who wants to understand them (with the right level of background info) has no hard time doing so.”
Yes, criticism fully accepted.
Partiallybright: “Instead it’s like you cram whole functions or classes into convoluted one-liners like some extreme programmer showing off his chops.”
Well, I code in Python most of the time, and I tend to write in functional/imperative style because it’s so much clearer and more concise to me and to others who I can consider to be more advanced. Funny thing is, people who think in procedural style find it very difficult to read my demonstrably functional code. What to do? Yes, add additional comments appropriate to their background.
But that doesn’t imply the code was fake. When something isn’t understood, where’s the indication that it’s fake?
When my wife and I have disagreed it has ALWAYS been because I tend to reason over the big chunks (assuming things are obvious (that’s our running joke at home) and fill in detail only as needed. Eventually she gets enough detail, wherever she needs it, to see where I’m coming from, and then we either agree, or decide that we were arguing the wrong question. We have ALWAYS agreed when we get to the point of understanding each other’s priors and basis of reasoning (and she knows nothing of Aumann.)
Partiallybright: “I just love it when Eli keeps it real and doesn’t spare the bullets. That accurate & lethal sniper rifle of his is never pointed at the wrong target. I detected no emotion involved, by the way...”
Are you sure there’s no emotion involved here, at any level?
“Well, I code in Python most of the time, and I tend to write in functional/imperative style because it’s so much clearer and more concise to me and to others who I can consider to be more advanced. Funny thing is, people who think in procedural style find it very difficult to read my demonstrably functional code. ” [Italics added]
Perhaps you could show us examples of the two contrasting styles?
If we are truly in contact with someone who can accurately form abstractions without considering examples, then I would expect to be impressed and baffled by their code.
And as you say, there would be evidence of its correctness from its successful execution.
Don’t bother with the comments. Just say what it’s supposed to do.
@Partiallybright: “If you really want to communicate your ideas, transfer them all the way to another brain, you would try harder to present them so that almost anyone who wants to understand them (with the right level of background info) has no hard time doing so.”
Yes, criticism fully accepted.
Partiallybright: “Instead it’s like you cram whole functions or classes into convoluted one-liners like some extreme programmer showing off his chops.”
Well, I code in Python most of the time, and I tend to write in functional/imperative style because it’s so much clearer and more concise to me and to others who I can consider to be more advanced. Funny thing is, people who think in procedural style find it very difficult to read my demonstrably functional code. What to do? Yes, add additional comments appropriate to their background.
But that doesn’t imply the code was fake. When something isn’t understood, where’s the indication that it’s fake?
When my wife and I have disagreed it has ALWAYS been because I tend to reason over the big chunks (assuming things are obvious (that’s our running joke at home) and fill in detail only as needed. Eventually she gets enough detail, wherever she needs it, to see where I’m coming from, and then we either agree, or decide that we were arguing the wrong question. We have ALWAYS agreed when we get to the point of understanding each other’s priors and basis of reasoning (and she knows nothing of Aumann.)
Partiallybright: “I just love it when Eli keeps it real and doesn’t spare the bullets. That accurate & lethal sniper rifle of his is never pointed at the wrong target. I detected no emotion involved, by the way...”
Are you sure there’s no emotion involved here, at any level?
“Well, I code in Python most of the time, and I tend to write in functional/imperative style because it’s so much clearer and more concise to me and to others who I can consider to be more advanced. Funny thing is, people who think in procedural style find it very difficult to read my demonstrably functional code. ” [Italics added]
Perhaps you could show us examples of the two contrasting styles?
If we are truly in contact with someone who can accurately form abstractions without considering examples, then I would expect to be impressed and baffled by their code.
And as you say, there would be evidence of its correctness from its successful execution.
Don’t bother with the comments. Just say what it’s supposed to do.