Design patterns

[tanix]

I just read one article here about patterns
and it made me shiver.

Are you guys trying to find a solution to your issue
by first looking if you can find as many "design patterns" as you
can find and then try to stick as many of them into your code,
as you can manage?

Is THAT the central idea about modern programming techniques?

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[AnonMail2005]

I just read one article here about patterns
and it made me shiver.

Are you guys trying to find a solution to your issue
by first looking if you can find as many "design patterns" as you
can find and then try to stick as many of them into your code,
as you can manage?

Is THAT the central idea about modern programming techniques?

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

You sound like a troll.

Certain design patterns are useful tools for solving certain
programming problems. I use them as I see fit.

 

[tanix]

You sound like a troll.

And THAT is how you START?

Certain design patterns are useful tools for solving certain
programming problems.
:--}

I use them as I see fit.

:--}

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[MiB]

Selecting design pattern(s) for an application is a delicate process.
On a more macroscopic level, it requires in-depth analysis similar to
selecting an algorithm for solving a problem.

In order to make an educated choice, in both cases you need to know a
number of alternatives, i.e. strong points and drawbacks of design
patterns for the task at hand as well as you need this for algorithms.
I did not check the web site you gave, but I assume its a kind of
collection or catalog of design patterns - of course it is not a good
idea to stick in design patterns into writing an application
indiscriminately but a catalog is a good knowledge base for not having
to invent the wheel over and over again.

best,

MiB

 

[James Kanze]

I just read one article here about patterns and it made me
shiver.

Are you guys trying to find a solution to your issue by first
looking if you can find as many "design patterns" as you can
find and then try to stick as many of them into your code, as
you can manage?

Maybe some are, but I've not encountered any. I have
encountered a lot of programmers who prefer reinventing known
solutions rather than using existing ones. In the end, using
design patterns is just using a common language for talking
about existing solutions, so you don't have to reinvent known
solutions each time around. (The common vocabulary is extremely
useful for documentation purposes.)

Is THAT the central idea about modern programming techniques?

The central idea about modern programming techniques is to
produce error free, maintainable software as cheaply as
possible. Using known solutions, when applicable, is an
effective technique for that.

 

[Jonathan Lee]

Are you guys trying to find a solution to your issue
by first looking if you can find as many "design patterns" as you
can find and then try to stick as many of them into your code,
as you can manage?

Is THAT the central idea about modern programming techniques?

Absolutely. In fact, for my undergrad thesis I'm working on a
"problem description language" that will take your problem/goal
and re-express it in design patterns. It will then write the
program by mechanically applying the design patterns.

But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
pattern for the above problem?

--Jonathan

 

[Stefan Ram]

But I'm having a small problem finishing it. Anyone know of a
pattern for the above problem?

Sure, just implement it as a GPS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver

 

[Branimir Maksimovic]

Sure, just implement it as a GPS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver

Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.
It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
, too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
be creative...

Greets

 

[Joshua Maurice]

Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.
It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
, too...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
be creative...

Interesting implications there. Almost brings a religious context to
the whole discussion. (That is, are humans "simple" chemical machines,
or do we possess a "soul"?) Suffice to say, you are greatly
simplifying the issues involved and jumping the gun.

This is already so off-topic, but I suggest reading some good books on
evolution by natural selection. Dawkin's The Greatest Show On Earth
does a remarkably good job describing evolution by natural selection,
specifically how evolution by natural selection may be the only known
natural process which creates information in a local open system, the
only process which creates information which is not intelligent
design. "The non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

Throw on a couple good books of information theory and entropy for
good measure.

On the flip side, who ever proved that humans are "creative"? Or any
moreso than a really good computer AI (which has not yet been made)?

 

[Branimir Maksimovic]

Interesting implications there. Almost brings a religious context to
the whole discussion. (That is, are humans "simple" chemical machines,
or do we possess a "soul"?) Suffice to say, you are greatly
simplifying the issues involved and jumping the gun.

I think that this does not have to do anything with soul.
Fact is that algorithm cannot think and that;s it.
Human consciousness and intelligence does not works
on algorithm. Plain fact. We can invent algorithm,
but algorithm itself can;t produce previously
unknown algorithm. But human brain can.
This is mathematical fact....

This is already so off-topic, but I suggest reading some good books on
evolution by natural selection.

Dawkin's The Greatest Show On Earth

What does this topic have to do with evolution?

Greets

 

[tanix]

Selecting design pattern(s) for an application is a delicate process.
On a more macroscopic level, it requires in-depth analysis similar to
selecting an algorithm for solving a problem.

In order to make an educated choice, in both cases you need to know a
number of alternatives, i.e. strong points and drawbacks of design
patterns for the task at hand as well as you need this for algorithms.
I did not check the web site you gave, but I assume its a kind of
collection or catalog of design patterns - of course it is not a good
idea to stick in design patterns into writing an application
indiscriminately but a catalog is a good knowledge base for not having
to invent the wheel over and over again.

Well, I am not against the design patterns in principle.

But what I DO see all over the place is a literal obscession.
That web page used two design patterns for a single thing.
I do not argue whether it IS the way to go or not.

But that looked like an extremism to me, just from glancing at it.

best,

MiB

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[tanix]

Maybe some are, but I've not encountered any. I have
encountered a lot of programmers who prefer reinventing known
solutions rather than using existing ones. In the end, using
design patterns is just using a common language for talking
about existing solutions, so you don't have to reinvent known
solutions each time around. (The common vocabulary is extremely
useful for documentation purposes.)


The central idea about modern programming techniques is to
produce error free, maintainable software as cheaply as
possible. Using known solutions, when applicable, is an
effective technique for that.

Thanx God!
I started feeling I am in a dreamland.
:--}

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[tanix]

Sure, just implement it as a GPS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Problem_Solver

I like this one:

"While GPS solved simple problems such as the Towers of Hanoi that could be
sufficiently formalized, it could not solve any real-world problems because
search was easily lost in the combinatorial explosion of intermediate states."

And that is EXACTLY what that French professor said
about 20 years ago if I recall correctly.
:--}

"combinatorial EXPLOSION".
Nothing less.

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[tanix]

Hm, back in 1987. my math teacher showed us mathematical proof that
algorithm for creating algorithms can;t possibly exist.
Yep.

It is based on proof that algorithm for proofs can;t possibly exits
, too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
That's why blue brain project is bound to fail.
Because anything which is based on algorithm cannot
be creative...
Correct.

Greets

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[tanix]

Interesting implications there. Almost brings a religious context to
the whole discussion. (That is, are humans "simple" chemical machines,
or do we possess a "soul"?) Suffice to say, you are greatly
simplifying the issues involved and jumping the gun.

This is already so off-topic, but I suggest reading some good books on
evolution by natural selection. Dawkin's The Greatest Show On Earth
does a remarkably good job describing evolution by natural selection,
specifically how evolution by natural selection may be the only known
natural process which creates information in a local open system, the
only process which creates information which is not intelligent
design. "The non-random survival of randomly varying replicators."

Throw on a couple good books of information theory and entropy for
good measure.

How bout this one:

"There are no closed systems. So the issue of entropy does not apply".

On the flip side, who ever proved that humans are "creative"? Or any
moreso than a really good computer AI (which has not yet been made)?

AI is just a myth.
How can you possibly create an ARTIFICIAN intelligence
if you don't even know how natural, and that is biological,
intelligence "works"?

AI is simply trying to copycat that, which alredy exists
in biological world.

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[Jonathan Lee]

:--}

Well, unfortunatly I do not have a reference to the article
by that French professor and I am not sure it is going to be
as encouraging for your trip, as you might expect otherwise.

It's OK; I have a design pattern for changing my expectations.

--Jonathan

 

[Joshua Maurice]

I think that this does not have to do anything with soul.
Fact is that algorithm cannot think and that;s it.
Human consciousness and intelligence does not works
on algorithm. Plain fact. We can invent algorithm,
but algorithm itself can;t produce previously
unknown algorithm. But human brain can.
This is mathematical fact....

Is it? Could you cite a published something which claims this? I
disagree with most of what you said. I do not agree that "algorithms
cannot think", nor "human consciousness and intelligence does not work
on an algorithm". Please go educate yourself some more, possibly
reading up on the Turing Test, and related thought experiments.

Also, how do you define "intelligence"? Something like the Turing
Test? What about the common thought experiment of the proverbial guy
in a big room running a very long algorithm, looking up through
millions and millions of pages of responses. Is "the room"
intelligent? Is the paper intelligent? Is there a difference between
the system and the constituent parts?

All of this is far from accepted fact, your stance or mine.

What does this topic have to do with evolution?

Our brain is a simple "algorithm", using the loosest definition of
algorithm. It may not be determinalistic, but there's no "magic" which
makes it something other than a chemical machine. (At least, that's my
world view.) (Where most people call that magic a "soul".) Evolution
explains how such a complex, interesting, and powerful algorithm came
to be.

 

[Branimir Maksimovic]

Is it? Could you cite a published something which claims this?

http://www.fact-index.com/m/ma/mathematical_logic.html
http://www.fact-index.com/s/se/second_order_logic.html


I

disagree with most of what you said. I do not agree that "algorithms
cannot think", nor "human consciousness and intelligence does not work
on an algorithm". Please go educate yourself some more, possibly
reading up on the Turing Test, and related thought experiments.

Also, how do you define "intelligence"? Something like the Turing
Test?

Intelligence is capability to find algorithm to solve some
problem. Therefore, if it is algorithm, it should be algorithm
that produces algorithm to solve particular problem.
So result would be algorithm. But since there is no algorithm
to proof validity of second order logic formulas, solution
is not based on algorithm, rather on intuition.

What about the common thought experiment of the proverbial guy

in a big room running a very long algorithm, looking up through
millions and millions of pages of responses. Is "the room"
intelligent? Is the paper intelligent? Is there a difference between
the system and the constituent parts?

All of this is far from accepted fact, your stance or mine.


Our brain is a simple "algorithm", using the loosest definition of
algorithm. It may not be determinalistic, but there's no "magic" which
makes it something other than a chemical machine. (At least, that's my
world view.) (Where most people call that magic a "soul".) Evolution
explains how such a complex, interesting, and powerful algorithm came
to be.

I think that atheists are deluded by algorithmic machines into believing
that brain is such machine. From that point of view atheists are just
another form of religion, which leads science in wrong direction.

Greets

 

[tanix]

Intelligence is capability to find algorithm to solve some
problem.

Sorry, I'd like to stay away from this, but can not.

Intelligence is NOT, and never EVER will be
"a capability to find algorithm to solve some problem"

This is the HIGHER order insult to Intelligence.

That is ALL I am interested in saying or even seeing
in THIS grade of crap.

Enough.

Therefore, if it is algorithm, it should be algorithm
that produces algorithm to solve particular problem.
So result would be algorithm. But since there is no algorithm
to proof validity of second order logic formulas, solution
is not based on algorithm, rather on intuition.

What about the common thought experiment of the proverbial guy

I think that atheists are deluded by algorithmic machines into believing
that brain is such machine. From that point of view atheists are just
another form of religion, which leads science in wrong direction.

Greets

--
Programmer's Goldmine collections:

http://preciseinfo.org

Tens of thousands of code examples and expert discussions on
C++, MFC, VC, ATL, STL, templates, Java, Python, Javascript,
organized by major topics of language, tools, methods, techniques.

 

[Branimir Maksimovic]

Sorry, I'd like to stay away from this, but can not.

Intelligence is NOT, and never EVER will be
"a capability to find algorithm to solve some problem"

This is the HIGHER order insult to Intelligence.

That is ALL I am interested in saying or even seeing
in THIS grade of crap.

Enough.

Enough.
What a impressive argument!

Greets