←back to thread

Everything Is Just Functions: 1 week with David Beazley and SICP

(ezzeriesa.notion.site)
390 points kurinikku | 8 comments | 17 Nov 24 15:07 UTC | HN request time: 1.041s | source | bottom
Show context
Animats ◴[17 Nov 24 19:08 UTC] No.42166199[source]▶
"Everything is just" approaches usually result in hammering things that don't fit into fitting. That often ends badly. Computing has been through, at least:

- Everything is just a function (SICP)

- Everything is just an object (Smalltalk, and to some extent Java)

- Everything is just a closure (the original Common LISP object system)

- Everything is just a file of bytes (UNIX)

- Everything is just a database (IBM System/38, Tandem)

replies(8): >>42166225 #>>42166849 #>>42167436 #>>42167755 #>>42167841 #>>42168165 #>>42170062 #>>42230269 #
1. Maxatar ◴[17 Nov 24 19:11 UTC] No.42166225[source]▶
None of the things you mention ended badly though. I think all of those approaches you list are incredibly useful and important concepts and I am very happy that I not only know them, but that because of how universal they are I can leverage my knowledge of one approach to learn or apply another approach.
replies(2): >>42167358 #>>42167565 #
2. thethimble ◴[17 Nov 24 21:16 UTC] No.42167358[source]▶
Another angle on this is that there’s many formal axiomatic ways to define computing.

Everything is just a Turing machine. Everything is just a function. Everything is the Conway’s game of life.

The fact that all of these forms are equally expressive is quite a surprise when you first discover this. Importantly, it doesn’t mean that any one set of axioms is “more correct” than the other. They’re equally expressive.

replies(1): >>42167625 #
3. hobs ◴[17 Nov 24 21:42 UTC] No.42167565[source]▶
I would go further and say that each one of these were so useful that they presented entirely new sets of problems to attempt to solve, because of how many other problems they directly addressed.

It's like being mad that hammer was so successful we invented screw to improve on it's greatest hits.

4. brudgers ◴[17 Nov 24 21:49 UTC] No.42167625[source]▶
Everything is just a Turing machine.

That one ends in a tarpit where everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.

replies(2): >>42167831 #>>42167859 #
5. Animats ◴[17 Nov 24 22:14 UTC] No.42167831{3}[source]▶
That's the generic problem with "Everything is a ...". Trying to force things into a paradigm that doesn't fit well complicates things.
replies(2): >>42167985 #>>42168864 #
6. zahlman ◴[17 Nov 24 22:17 UTC] No.42167859{3}[source]▶
>where everything is possible but nothing of interest is easy.

Real development IMX is not much different. People just have low standards for "interesting" nowadays, and also have vastly increased access to previous solutions for increasingly difficult problems. But while modern programming languages might be more pleasant to use in many ways, they have relatively little to do with the combined overall progress developers have made. Increased access to "compute" (as they say nowadays), effort put into planning and design, and the simple passage of time are all far more important factors in explaining where we are now IMO.

7. brudgers ◴[17 Nov 24 22:35 UTC] No.42167985{4}[source]▶
The generic problem is every generation thinks they invented sex.

https://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html

8. grugagag ◴[18 Nov 24 01:19 UTC] No.42168864{4}[source]▶
It is a simplification that makes easier to grasp a paradigm. Sure, it could be taken to extremes and pretend nothing else exists outside this ‘everything is a … “ bubble. Luckily we can learn from others’ mistakes and not fall into traps too often.