←back to thread

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

(ezzeriesa.notion.site)
389 points kurinikku | 1 comments | 17 Nov 24 15:07 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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(7): >>42166225 #>>42166849 #>>42167436 #>>42167755 #>>42167841 #>>42168165 #>>42170062 #
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 #
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 #
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 #
Animats ◴[17 Nov 24 22:14 UTC] No.42167831[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 #
1. grugagag ◴[18 Nov 24 01:19 UTC] No.42168864[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.