flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 195, 196, 197 ... 245, 246, 247  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
DimonSoft



Joined: 03 Mar 2010
Posts: 706
Location: Belarus
DimonSoft
Furs wrote:
DimonSoft wrote:
So, you’re basically trying to turn your personal preference into reason for something to be different?
How am I trying to "turn" anything? I just stated my opinion.

I’ll then ignore your opinionated replies from now on.

Furs wrote:
DimonSoft wrote:
I’d like to see any reasoning for math notation being ugly, instead of plain sentiments. Greek letters, for instance, make it much easier to explain the theory of programming languages (the one Dragon Book is about), making a clear distinction between terminals, nonterminals and arbitrary substrings.
Greek letters make nothing easier and are only a historical artifact or based on "tradition", just like musical notation, both are full of baggage and nonsense. (music notation, in particular, can be expressed much more logically via simple mathematical relationships; a notation based on numbers is so much easier to comprehend)

You know very little about musical notation, right? I’m looking forward to see the “simple mathematical relationship” that represents, say, pentatonic scales. Remember, no musical notations, so you should start with tone frequencies.

Furs wrote:
The problem with math notation is that it's too much like a functional programming language instead of imperative. These days you can analyze a math problem imperatively, like in some CAS software, and it's so much easier.

It’s not. One of the basic concepts of functional programming is pure functions and using them whenever possible. Such functions are much easier to test and to prove their correctness. Having state is so much easier with imperative paradigm, and it really makes complete test coverage for arbitrary piece of code impossible. Functional programming is just another way of thinking and staying tied to one paradigm is a way to professional degradation. It is usually more of baby duck syndrome than some reasoning behind that.

Furs wrote:
the rest of the world hates functional programming.

The small rest of the world. Most still use its basic concepts even if not using the functional programming languages. C++ like every other more-or-less-popular language has recently borrowed a lot of features from functional languages.

Furs wrote:
I can say it's math notation vs "whole other world" based on C notation.

Very small part of the world actually. But it produces most of the buzz.

Furs wrote:
There's a reason it's so popular (C-like syntax I mean, not C itself) -- and it's not due to historical reasons like math notation is.

It is due to historical reasons. You still ignore the facts about the problems C-based notation faced when those languages started to grow up and add new features, that other languages avoided. You also ignore the fact that most C-based languages actually try to share only the general look-and-feel of C, not its notation and semantics.

You’re falling into survivorship bias: the fact that some language gained more success than others at some point in time doesn’t prove it has some special properties causing that. Language popularity is a function of language properties, environment, “business model”, occurence at the right time and place, other factors, and luck as one of them.

Besides, popularity is a very bad way to find a good language, ’cause, you know, millions of flies can’t be wrong Wink Most people are most people, professionals are never the majority. Most people eat fast food, most people wear cheap shoes that break after a month or two, most people use phones that need to be replaced every few years, most people aren’t polyglots, most people vote for politicians who are the cause of wars. Popularity is more likely to be a sign of something very average, with lots of flaws in it.

Ali.Z wrote:
im not really into this discussion, but math is optional in programming.
you and/or others probably know im bad in math, but seriously math is optional.

maybe math is needed when working on graphics, converting from one numeral system to another, or when writing an assembler.

and i really dont know anything about math, at all.

Note that I was talking about programming, not plain coding. Programming includes more that writing code, it also includes the evaluation of algorithm complexities to choose the most suitable ones, it includes making architectural decisions which requires one to be at least aware of quality and complexity measurement approaches. Programming requires some amount of planning so that the release date is predicted close to reality and marketing people are doing their job just on time—and that involves reliability models that are usually based on probability theory and involves elements of mathematical analysis. The things you’ve mentioned are just letters from the primer in programming.
Post 21 Apr 2019, 01:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Somehow I went into deeper rabbit hole, what cause layers? what cause things to build upward? The nature of things when they build up.

We built house, double storeys, flat, apartments, condominiums, Taipei 101, iss,

walking, bicycle, motorbike, car, truck, train, airplane, supersonic, outerspace craft,

The flow of thing is, reaching higher and higher, they are less abundant, but does this happened with atom when they building up?

The combination of atom should create more issues, complexities when they merged and build up, do we observe such problem? Why no?
Post 21 Apr 2019, 04:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
http://www.antenna-theory.com/
Quote:
This website is intended to be a source of knowledge for learning about and understanding antennas. The goal is to present a comprehensive tutorial on antennas. In the spirit of Einstein:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
This website will strive to make antennas understandable, without unnecessary complexity.

Bookmarked for later.
Post 21 Apr 2019, 06:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 701
guignol
serhii plokhii


Description:
Download
Filename: brama_gates.7z
Filesize: 617.88 KB
Downloaded: 42 Time(s)

Post 21 Apr 2019, 08:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
DimonSoft wrote:
I’ll then ignore your opinionated replies from now on.
I bet there's more people who prefer C's syntax than math notation. And preferring math notation is also an opinion so not really sure what your point is here.

DimonSoft wrote:
You know very little about musical notation, right? I’m looking forward to see the “simple mathematical relationship” that represents, say, pentatonic scales. Remember, no musical notations, so you should start with tone frequencies.
Scales are not based on frequencies, they're based on ratios between notes. There's only one frequency and that's the tuning of the scale. You can put that at the beginning of the song (well, unless you change it halfway, then sure you need to specify it when it is changed).

As someone who coded audio processing, you kind of have to understand how harmonies work, at a mathematical level. That's when you realize just how convoluted and archaic the muscial notation is. So many arbitrary rules and exceptions instead of having a simple linear map of ratios for the specific scale that is chosen (if the scale has to be changed, again, that's easy enough to do). Note that the pentatonic scale is a subset, though, so you don't technically need it, you can use a scale that encloses it, like the common heptatonic scale.

DimonSoft wrote:
The small rest of the world. Most still use its basic concepts even if not using the functional programming languages. C++ like every other more-or-less-popular language has recently borrowed a lot of features from functional languages.
Sure it did, and that strengthens my point. Go to any average C++ forum or gathering and start talking about functional programming with lambdas and templates. Don't be surprised when you get the majority spell out a "WTF?"

Even die-hard fans of this functional programming subset of C++ admittedly joke around that they are in the tiny minority who understand that crap when it comes to it.

DimonSoft wrote:
Very small part of the world actually.
The people who actively like math notation are much, much smaller than this. Sure some use it because they are forced to by society, not because they like it.

DimonSoft wrote:
Popularity is more likely to be a sign of something very average, with lots of flaws in it.
Or it's a sign that something else is just unnecessarily convoluted, considering they do the same job (since it's about notation). Depends on the context.
Post 21 Apr 2019, 11:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fpissarra



Joined: 10 Apr 2019
Posts: 64
fpissarra
sleepsleep wrote:
We built house, double storeys, flat, apartments, condominiums, Taipei 101, iss, walking, bicycle, motorbike, car, truck, train, airplane, supersonic, outerspace craft, ...


Antropomorphizing nature again? Smile

sleepsleep wrote:
The flow of thing is, reaching higher and higher, they are less abundant, but does this happened with atom when they building up?


Why "less abundant"?

sleepsleep wrote:
The combination of atom should create more issues, complexities when they merged and build up, do we observe such problem? Why no?


You do know that all the atoms in the periodic table comes from, basically, Hydrogen, don't you? Inside starts they are "crushed" by gravity and other forces and are "fused" together to form complex atoms (as Oxygen, Iron, Copper, Uranium, etc)...


Last edited by fpissarra on 21 Apr 2019, 16:00; edited 1 time in total
Post 21 Apr 2019, 14:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fpissarra



Joined: 10 Apr 2019
Posts: 64
fpissarra
sleepsleep wrote:
What is natural and what is unnatural, It sounds more like when we could affirm how something was formed by natural forces, then it is natural or else, they are unnatural, Laughing


The ethimological origin of "nature" comes from latin "natura". One of its meanings is "universe". So, your interpretation is absolutely correct (I think).

sleepsleep wrote:
I went to have my late night supper and saw a movie in television, ant man. One scene caught my attention, it said, where time is no longer relevant, but you see, my conclusion is, time never exists, it just a measurement scale like km, liter, GHz etc, it helps us to measure changes.


While "time" is an abstract concept, as anything else, it exists because we are affected by it (you don't see anyone becoming younger as "time" passes, do you?).

sleepsleep wrote:
I went into deeper rabbit hole, does the existence of number and its relationship, actually showcase intelligent design?


Of course! OUR (humans) design!

sleepsleep wrote:
Let say I am a carpenter, I build chair, so I keep on building chair. Now what cause the idea, I need to know how many chair I built? Does the dog wants to know how many time I feed her in a single day? Does the cat wants to know how many kitten she got?

Do cats care if they are beautiful or ugly in front of a mirror and why?


It is clear that animals hava a sense of aesthetics (to choose mates, for instance), and know how to count (not by numbers, of course) - One predator is bad, but maybe manageble (Fight!), two is worse (Run!)...

sleepsleep wrote:
When there are non space instead of everything shows up in space, like a car without body, but only essential thing in daylight. The existence of things could function, integrate and perform under the hood, is already some sort of arts, just like the car body.


Huh? there are "non-space"? If it is "non space" than there is NO space, no "there are"...

sleepsleep wrote:
We are using conscious, number, logic, etc that essential for us to somehow understand what is going on, do all these concepts, ideas, etc, already exists before big bang, or before universes exist?


Obviously not... those are concepts created by us though time. An attempt to explain the phenomena surrounding us... The universe exists, things are real, it's our concepts that could be wrong (but we do the best we can!)... Smile

sleepsleep wrote:
Who am I before I am here right now on Earth, solving this is equal to solving where the hell universe came from I guess. Laughing


My tendence is to say "You didn't exist before your birth", as you'll not exist after your death. But, in fact, nobody knows... I think this problem is unsolvable.
Post 21 Apr 2019, 14:44
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fpissarra



Joined: 10 Apr 2019
Posts: 64
fpissarra
Ali.Z wrote:
im not really into this discussion, but math is optional in programming.
you and/or others probably know im bad in math, but seriously math is optional.

maybe math is needed when working on graphics, converting from one numeral system to another, or when writing an assembler.

and i really dont know anything about math, at all.


Well... then you know nothing abour programming at all as well... All programming and programming languages are is math. "algorithms" are applied math. Control keywords as 'if', 'then', 'else', 'for', 'while'... all came from math (logic). Notice that what you do in your code is to write "functions" and "expressions" using numbers (even strings or chars are numbers!) and "variables" (like i, j, k, x, y, z), sequences (arrays), etc...

Programming IS math. Math isn't optional.
Post 21 Apr 2019, 15:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Ali.Z



Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 344
Ali.Z
fpissarra wrote:
Ali.Z wrote:
im not really into this discussion, but math is optional in programming.
you and/or others probably know im bad in math, but seriously math is optional.

maybe math is needed when working on graphics, converting from one numeral system to another, or when writing an assembler.

and i really dont know anything about math, at all.


Well... then you know nothing abour programming at all as well... All programming and programming languages are is math. "algorithms" are applied math. Control keywords as 'if', 'then', 'else', 'for', 'while'... all came from math (logic). Notice that what you do in your code is to write "functions" and "expressions" using numbers (even strings or chars are numbers!) and "variables" (like i, j, k, x, y, z), sequences (arrays), etc...

Programming IS math. Math isn't optional.


first of, im not sure why you mentioned programming languages.

then im not sure about what are these: if, then, else, etc...

and logic have nothing to do with math, if you are considering everything as a NUMBER and NUMBER IS MATH then your whole life is math. which im sorry for you and for your way of living and thinking.

still, programming is not math. and math is OPTIONAL.

Code:
invoke     CreateFile,lpFileName,GENERIC_READ or GENERIC_WRITE,NULL,NULL,OPEN_EXISTING,FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL,NULL
mov     ebx,eax

invoke     GetFileSize,ebx,NULL
mov     [file_size],eax

invoke     VirtualAlloc,NULL,[file_size],MEM_COMMIT,PAGE_READWRITE
mov     [new_memory],eax

invoke     ReadFile,ebx,new_memory,[file_size],lpNumberOfBytesRead,NULL    


do you call this math?
did i calculate the size of file? or the OS did it?
do i have a direct access to the HDD or SDD to manually calculate the size?
who is performing virtual memory page rounding?

oh or do you consider: as math?
Code:
CMP EAX,00011000h
jz iDontLikeMath ; you are just depending on the state of zero-flag
jmp iDontKnowMath    




in MOST cases you do not need to do math, many useful programs, set of utilities, and other things are made WITHOUT the need of math.

_________________
Asm For Wise Humans


Last edited by Ali.Z on 21 Apr 2019, 16:57; edited 2 times in total
Post 21 Apr 2019, 16:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DimonSoft



Joined: 03 Mar 2010
Posts: 706
Location: Belarus
DimonSoft
Furs wrote:
DimonSoft wrote:
I’ll then ignore your opinionated replies from now on.
I bet there's more people who prefer C's syntax than math notation. And preferring math notation is also an opinion so not really sure what your point is here.

My point is that there’s no need to talk about preferences. We’d better talk about how different notations apply to practice and what problems occur. I’ve mentioned a few problems with C notation that could be (and are) easily solved by using a mature notation that is well-known, widely-understood and has bypassed its own childhood problems long ago. But I remember no particular reaction to those, so I don’t add more items to the list for now.

Furs wrote:
DimonSoft wrote:
You know very little about musical notation, right? I’m looking forward to see the “simple mathematical relationship” that represents, say, pentatonic scales. Remember, no musical notations, so you should start with tone frequencies.
Scales are not based on frequencies, they're based on ratios between notes. There's only one frequency and that's the tuning of the scale. You can put that at the beginning of the song (well, unless you change it halfway, then sure you need to specify it when it is changed).

As someone who coded audio processing, you kind of have to understand how harmonies work, at a mathematical level. That's when you realize just how convoluted and archaic the muscial notation is. So many arbitrary rules and exceptions instead of having a simple linear map of ratios for the specific scale that is chosen (if the scale has to be changed, again, that's easy enough to do). Note that the pentatonic scale is a subset, though, so you don't technically need it, you can use a scale that encloses it, like the common heptatonic scale.

That’s all quite funny but I remember you were suggesting existing musical notation is bad and plain numbers and mathematical relationships are easier to comprehend.
Furs wrote:
(music notation, in particular, can be expressed much more logically via simple mathematical relationships; a notation based on numbers is so much easier to comprehend)

So, shall we see the example of a small piece of music written in the better notation you imply? And I still wait for the simple mathematical relationship between frequencies and scales (unless you consider fractional powers to be “simple”, of course, which then raises a question of whether your feeling of simplicity and convenience is applicable to the majority of people).

Furs wrote:
DimonSoft wrote:
The small rest of the world. Most still use its basic concepts even if not using the functional programming languages. C++ like every other more-or-less-popular language has recently borrowed a lot of features from functional languages.
Sure it did, and that strengthens my point. Go to any average C++ forum or gathering and start talking about functional programming with lambdas and templates. Don't be surprised when you get the majority spell out a "WTF?"

Even die-hard fans of this functional programming subset of C++ admittedly joke around that they are in the tiny minority who understand that crap when it comes to it.

The same happened with anyone who started diving deeper into C++ far before elements of functional programming got borrowed. Sure, adding something new to a language that is a mess in the first place cannot improve its consistency.

Furs wrote:
DimonSoft wrote:
Very small part of the world actually.
The people who actively like math notation are much, much smaller than this. Sure some use it because they are forced to by society, not because they like it.

Why do you choose only active likers of math notation and compare them with all likers of C notation? Not to mention that you still somehow put the equality sign (sorry Smile) between someone’s preferences and pieces of notation being suitable to reuse. The Internet is mostly a large pile of crap, but that’s not a valid reason to abandon it.

Furs wrote:
DimonSoft wrote:
Popularity is more likely to be a sign of something very average, with lots of flaws in it.
Or it's a sign that something else is just unnecessarily convoluted, considering they do the same job (since it's about notation). Depends on the context.

Then, again, maybe you’d better stop pretending the popularity is a valid reason to consider something to be good or bad?
Post 21 Apr 2019, 16:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
fpissarra wrote:

Antropomorphizing nature again?

Just a wild assumption that this is how nature going to evolve when consciousness attached to it evolves.

fpissarra wrote:

Why "less abundant"?

Because this is how the pyramid system works, in fact, does the ancient built those pyramids to inform us about this realization?

What are the single molecule that could form biggest pyramid? I still wondering why the ancient built pyramids, I haven't yet visit them, but from pictures, they are really huge.

Hopefully there got to be some really important messages when you spent so much resources to build those pyramids.

sleepsleep wrote:

The combination of atom should create more issues, complexities when they merged and build up, do we observe such problem? Why no?

What atom stands on top of atom pyramid chart?

What are forces in term of atom? What are magnetic? What are gases? What are fire?

fpissarra wrote:

You do know that all the atoms in the periodic table comes from, basically, from Hydrogen, don't you?

No, I don't, and I thank you for telling me this information.

~
Could consciousness alone change atom? like those forces?
Quote:
DNA, which stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, resembles a long, spiraling ladder. It consists of just a few kinds of atoms: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus. ... Other combinations of the atoms form the four bases: thymine (T), adenine (A), cytosine (C), and guanine (G).

Essentially, we are dna?

fpissarra wrote:
(you don't see anyone becoming younger as "time" passes, do you?)

Becoming younger in term of physical look should be very possible in coming future.

fpissarra wrote:
It is clear that animals hava a sense of aesthetics (to choose mates, for instance), and know how to count (not by numbers, of course) - One predator is bad, but maybe manageble (Fight!), two is worse (Run!)...
Interesting, I didn't think of this.

fpissarra wrote:
My tendence is to say "You didn't exist before your birth", as you'll not exist after your death. But, in fact, nobody knows... I think this problem is unsolvable.

Are we riding on these atoms? like forces, fire, etc?
Post 21 Apr 2019, 20:11
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8903
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) — More than 200 people were killed and hundreds more wounded in eight bomb blasts that rocked churches and luxury hotels in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday — the deadliest violence the South Asian island country has seen since a bloody civil war ended a decade ago.

Riding on atoms and doing all kinds of destructions.
Post 21 Apr 2019, 20:33
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fpissarra



Joined: 10 Apr 2019
Posts: 64
fpissarra
sleepsleep wrote:
fpissarra wrote:
Why "less abundant"?

Because this is how the pyramid system works, in fact, does the ancient built those pyramids to inform us about this realization?

Ok, one can argue that specific atomic structures can become "less abundant" since all atoms, except those which are stable, are decaying to a less complex state. This can happen trillions of years ahead (the observable universe IS expanding and atoms are decaying), so, praticaly, it doesn't make sense asserting that "atoms are less abundant" now. And, of course, atoms aren't human constructions (only the "concept" of atoms are)...

sleepsleep wrote:
sleepsleep wrote:
The combination of atom should create more issues, complexities when they merged and build up, do we observe such problem? Why no?

What atom stands on top of atom pyramid chart?


Atoms aren't similar to social, political or economic structures. They are a mathematical model about structures from which matter is made of. To assert that atoms obey a "pyramidal chart" scheme is the same to ask your coffee mug if it likes when you sip your coffe from it or if your car is happy when you take it to a ride...

sleepsleep wrote:
What are forces in term of atom? What are magnetic? What are gases? What are fire?


"Force" is a concept. A resulting combination of mass and motion (acceleration). Magnetism is one part of a primary force: "electromagnectic force", one of the conceptualized prime forces of nature, a result of particles spinning. A gas is one of the states of matter (sorry, but since you asked, liquid and solid are the other two - and there are a forth state called "triple point", where matter assumes the 3 states at the same time). Fire is usualy "hot gas" (plasma).

sleepsleep wrote:
fpissarra wrote:
You do know that all the atoms in the periodic table comes from, basically, from Hydrogen, don't you?

No, I don't, and I thank you for telling me this information.

Another fun fact: Aside from hydrogen (which has a very basic structure), there are other atoms stable enough, so they typically don't decay (loosing protons) over time: Helium, Argonium and all the "noble" elements in the periodic table. But they also were made from hydrogen, inside the stars...

sleepsleep wrote:
Could consciousness alone change atom? like those forces?

Of course there are chemical reactions (changing all the time) in your body, including your brain, but "conscience" ruling these reactions? Nah! First: We don't know what "conscience" is or even if it is real (it feels real, doesn't mean it is!).

sleepsleep wrote:
Essentially, we are dna?

Essentially, yes. But not only. Surely our bodly structure uses DNA as a building block, but, there are other processes not understood yet. As you already said: conscience is one of them... Conscience is a product of the brain? Probably! We simply don't have any evidence to say otherwise (but have some evidence to assert that it is a product of the brain, whatever it is or if it is real).

sleepsleep wrote:
fpissarra wrote:
(you don't see anyone becoming younger as "time" passes, do you?)

Becoming younger in term of physical look should be very possible in coming future.

Young in a sense of an adult becoming a child again. Not talking about cosmetic enhancements, medial treatment or cirurgical procedures. Let's take people aside from this analogy and focus on atomic structures: If all atoms, except those stable enough, are decaying to become stable, and simple, over time (hence the existence of isotopes), and there are NONE becoming more complex (with more complex atomic structure) outside conditions to fuse with each other (requiring great pressure and heat to do so, being possible just inside a star), then is corect to infer that "time" exists and goes only forward.

Note I'm talking about single atoms, not substances here.

sleepsleep wrote:
fpissarra wrote:
My tendence is to say "You didn't exist before your birth", as you'll not exist after your death. But, in fact, nobody knows... I think this problem is unsolvable.

Are we riding on these atoms? like forces, fire, etc?

Well... atoms are very tiny things. Never seen someone riding one of them (the same way somebody can ride a horse or a motorcycle)... I have seem people siting on top of them (I am sitting on them right now!)... Smile
Post 22 Apr 2019, 04:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 701
guignol
how can you tell where is top
Post 22 Apr 2019, 05:02
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fpissarra



Joined: 10 Apr 2019
Posts: 64
fpissarra
guignol wrote:
how can you tell where is top

Of what?
Post 22 Apr 2019, 13:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
DimonSoft wrote:
My point is that there’s no need to talk about preferences. We’d better talk about how different notations apply to practice and what problems occur. I’ve mentioned a few problems with C notation that could be (and are) easily solved by using a mature notation that is well-known, widely-understood and has bypassed its own childhood problems long ago. But I remember no particular reaction to those, so I don’t add more items to the list for now.
But there's nothing wrong with a plain = for assignment. The issue was in the equality comparison (i.e. ==) but that is solved today easily by compilers.

Note that sometimes it's useful to assign and check for NULL like:
Code:
if((p = malloc(blah)))    
(parentheses to avoid warning)

This is more evident when you have a chain of logical ORs since you'll have to assign it at some point but want the same block to execute.

DimonSoft wrote:
That’s all quite funny but I remember you were suggesting existing musical notation is bad and plain numbers and mathematical relationships are easier to comprehend.
I don't see how I was talking about anything else? Scales (and notes) are just ratios to either the previous note (12-tet) or to the base frequency. A simple linear map of such ratios is much easier than fiddling with crap like sharps/flats, 12-tone equal temperament (when you restrict yourself to only 7 notes in the scale), and so on.

DimonSoft wrote:
So, shall we see the example of a small piece of music written in the better notation you imply? And I still wait for the simple mathematical relationship between frequencies and scales (unless you consider fractional powers to be “simple”, of course, which then raises a question of whether your feeling of simplicity and convenience is applicable to the majority of people).
There's no such notation yet, I just said it can be represented, but I'm not willing to waste time and money to promote this. (note that many people have tried and failed to catch on because of tradition, despite being proven scientifically that they are easier, look around). I know it won't gain traction, anyway, so it wouldn't be wise to waste my time and resources for sheep who won't change their ways anyway.

You also don't have to think of it as complicated or "logarithmic" stuff. Instead, think of it multiplicatively. That is, the ratio between successive notes.

DimonSoft wrote:
The same happened with anyone who started diving deeper into C++ far before elements of functional programming got borrowed. Sure, adding something new to a language that is a mess in the first place cannot improve its consistency.
Can't agree. Template metaprogramming (which is functional at its core) is notorious for being "hard to understand", it's a known meme at this point. It even has a section in wikipedia mentioning this.

DimonSoft wrote:
Why do you choose only active likers of math notation and compare them with all likers of C notation? Not to mention that you still somehow put the equality sign (sorry Smile) between someone’s preferences and pieces of notation being suitable to reuse. The Internet is mostly a large pile of crap, but that’s not a valid reason to abandon it.
When it comes down to semantic differences, people tend to pick what's easier (since they're lazy in general) or to avoid what's unnecessarily convoluted.

DimonSoft wrote:
Then, again, maybe you’d better stop pretending the popularity is a valid reason to consider something to be good or bad?
I agree about good/bad, but the point was that in semantics or syntax, there's no other difference (literally) than how easy it is to understand or read. It won't change the output, useability, factor-ability, or whatever.

So in this context popularity tends to show which one is easier for most people, and which one is unnecessarily convoluted.
Post 22 Apr 2019, 14:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fpissarra



Joined: 10 Apr 2019
Posts: 64
fpissarra
DimonSoft wrote:
My point is that there’s no need to talk about preferences. We’d better talk about how different notations apply to practice and what problems occur. I’ve mentioned a few problems with C notation that could be (and are) easily solved by using a mature notation that is well-known, widely-understood and has bypassed its own childhood problems long ago. But I remember no particular reaction to those, so I don’t add more items to the list for now.

I can't agree with the notion of "mature notation" of other programming languages, specially if they are newer than C. But, maybe you are talking abour mathematical symbology, which will turn the coding pratice hell (try to imagine coding a complex piece of software entirely in LaTeX AMS package style, for example).

Furs wrote:
But there's nothing wrong with a plain = for assignment. The issue was in the equality comparison (i.e. ==) but that is solved today easily by compilers.

Note that sometimes it's useful to assign and check for NULL like:
Code:
if((p = malloc(blah)))    
(parentheses to avoid warning)

Yep, nothing wrong with '=' as assignment operator if there is a different style for equality. But use ":=" as assignment and "=" for equality is valid as well (as in Pascal). It is preference.

Your example explores a (designed) side effect of C language expressions and the evaluation of boolean values. "Sometimes" that kind of expression is useful, most of the times, not, for example:
Code:
if ( socket( AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_TCP ) ) ...    

Here socket() returns -1 in case of error or a value greater then 2 in case of success (stdin, stdout and stderr uses 0, 1 and 2), all possible return values are evaluated as "true".

In your example it is a happy (designed) thing NULL is defined as 0 (ok, ok... (void *)0 ) and malloc() returns NULL in case of error...

Furs wrote:
This is more evident when you have a chain of logical ORs since you'll have to assign it at some point but want the same block to execute.

Are you talking about "short circuits"? They aren't exclusive to C/C++.

... there are some things I would say about philosophy and math of music, but, never mind...

Furs wrote:
So in this context popularity tends to show which one is easier for most people, and which one is unnecessarily convoluted.

Popularity isn't based in the solo fact of "easier to use". Most of the time a group of people prefer something based on price (not necessarily money), aesthetics, fun and necessity (not, necessarily in this order). If you need something and it is "easy to use", but expensive, ugly and boring, probably you will not like it, hence, less popular it becomes.

I think "easiest to use" is one of the last criteria for popularity...

One can argue that there are popular things which are expensive and not particularly fun. f.i, Apple iPhones. But "easy to use" is not the criteria as well. It's marketing.
Post 22 Apr 2019, 15:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 701
guignol
philosophy & math?
Post 22 Apr 2019, 19:43
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fpissarra



Joined: 10 Apr 2019
Posts: 64
fpissarra
guignol wrote:
philosophy & math?

Didn't you know? Science and math are subsets of philosophy...
Post 22 Apr 2019, 19:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Image
Post 22 Apr 2019, 23:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 195, 196, 197 ... 245, 246, 247  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.