- Joined
- 4/14/13
- Messages
- 784
- Points
- 73
That article is way too long. I reckon 70% can be removed while keeping the message.
That was the old days. Now they learn how to do it using recursion... and memoization.But every CS student learns to program Fibonacci using recursion.
I hate Fibonacci :DThat was the old days. Now they learn how to do it using recursion... and memoization.
no, I'm just hinting at how things have changed (sometimes they don't change at all) with time.I hate Fibonacci :D
What's the point?
If you are hinting that functional programming is cool, then I would agree. It's very close to mathematics.
Even AI.
Fair enough. But can we teach a computer to program.Not sure about that. If you look at advances in areas like reinforcement learning, you might change your mind.
i dont think its possible before human figures out how consciousness worksFair enough. But can we teach a computer to program.
identify problems -> apply creative solutions -> learn how to apply solutions -> repeat
It is interesting how the impedance mismatch (the ->) between these activities is resolved.
If you write code to do anything, you are a programmer. It is said that quants spend > 70% of their time programming.
Doesn't really help with programming software systems. Just only nice to have, maybe. It's premature optimisation IMO. CS education is very much focused on these nice (Pareto 20-80) features as far as I can see but I could be very wrong.That was the old days. Now they learn how to do it using recursion... and memoization.
More crucially, how expensive is it to maintain undocumented, monolithic software systems?
CS education is very much focused on these nice (Pareto 20-80) features as far as I can see but I could be very wrong.