Paragone

This is a bit beyond architecture, but being competent to build a mathematically bug-free API is probably something that few programmers would even bother trying to compete-against…

https://leanpub.com/algebra-driven-design

I think there is a fundamental mis-framing, throughout the entire software/development understanding…

I think that the architecture needs to be simultaneously agilely-devloped, but into an executable-model, a kind of toy-implimentation, so it is easy to change the architecture, low-cost, BEFORE one converts it into load-bearing, & therefore unchangeable architecture ( architecture’s the hardest thing to change, as it’s most-fundamental )

So, I think that the proper way is to do it in 2 stages:

1. agilely develop the architecture, until ALL required-kinds-of-function are working, in the toy-model, & one has re-architected it so that the structure is right, & then
2. set about converting it from the high-level-language to whatever production-language it is that is efficiency-optimal, for production-scale.

This is part of an idea from years ago: I read in a Wiley GAAP book that I happened to be glancing into, that it’s a violation of GAAP to prototype any project in any language other than the final-implimentation-language, & expense that prototype.

Which is totally insane!

Prototype in the highest-level-language you can, to get the domain+architecture right, then reimpliment what you have to in the most production-efficient/effective language for that project.

GAAP ( of that year ) is categorically wrong: it penalizes optimal-prototyping.

It was years-later before I discovered that an English mathematician ( roundish ginger, worked in Glasgow, no idea what his name was, sorry ) had studied the difference between complex projects which worked vs ones which died, & it was the visual-spacial-representation-of-the-model, & the complete-coverage executable-model which made the successes win.

So, I just put those ideas together.

_ /\ _

< sigh >

There WAS a video on yt by a Norwegian man on why OO languages push people into spreading side-effects throughout the code, whereas in Haskell, side-effects are optimally conserved to Main.hs

I can’t find that video, now.

He was on stage, a talk of some kind, not as formal as a university-lecture, so it was some conference, of some kind… ( in case anybody else finds it )

I think that that principle is contradicting what the article is saying… ( skimmed the rest, I think he’s generally right, but burying side-effects seems to be wrong, from Haskell’s perspective, & I think Haskell’s right, generally. )

_ /\ _

Saw this, a long while ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5NrevFtbU

It measures clean code to wreck performance to terrible degree.

From the looks of it, in Molly Rocket’s view, clean code is an industry-wronging cult.

They’ve multiple videos on the subject, from different angles

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=molly+rocket+clean+code

Just putting this here for hopefully-more-accurate-view.

_ /\ _

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

pointed-out, in 1 of his books, that WHEN

• a) nuclear-weapons are proliferating
• b) there is no control on whom it is, their nature, who has them, or who inherits them, or who takes-possession of them, &
• c) enmities abound, globally,

THEN … sooner-or-later they’re GOING to get used.

It’s irrational to believe otherwise.

This has been inevitable all along.

There is 1 pending upside, though: IF nukes are all engineered to be presuming GPS/GLONASS/etc, AND KesslerSyndrome has been enforced before “the button” gets pressed, THEN they should refuse-to-launch, due to their dependencies, the nav-sats, not being the help they should be.

So, our surviving the nuclear dimension of WW3, might actually come down to some country smashing another country’s nav-sats, & the shrapnel from that taking ALL of them to smithereens, thereby taking the missiles’ nav-brain out with it.

Typical ideological-nationalistic idiocy.

“it was the mistakes they made, all stacked atop each-other, which saved their species” is exactly what the galactic-news might report, later this decade.

_ /\ _

There ought be a do not follow recursive links switch for it, Hoomin…

_ /\ _

There’s a “philosopher” who the far-right techbro-oligarchs rely on, whose blog is grey-something-or-other…

I tried using wget & there’s a bug or something in the site, so it keeps inserting links-to-other-sites into uri’s, so you get bullshit like

grey-something-or-other.substack.com/e/b/a/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/etc…

The site apparently works for the people who browse it, but wget isn’t succeeding in just cloning the thing.

I want the items that the usable-site is made-of, not endless-failed-requests following recursive errors, forever…

Apparently one has to be ultra-competent to be able to configure all the disincludes & things in the command-line-switches, to get any particular site dealt-with by wget.

Sure, on static-sites it’s magic, but on too many sites with dynamically-constructed portions of themselves, it’s a damn headache, at times…

_ /\ _