Oh Boy...More Brower Weirdness!!!

[Michael Wojcik]

heck, I'm still wondering why
variables can also be functions!

Why not?

Javascript (and other ECMAScript implementations) is a "functional"
programming language, which means that functions are first-class
entities: they can be created and manipulated in various ways while
the program runs. Other well-known functional languages are the LISP
family (LISP, Scheme), the ML family (Standard ML, OCaml), and Haskell.

But even non-functional languages usually offer support for variables
that refer to functions and can be used to evaluate functions. C has
function pointer types. COBOL has procedure-pointers. Most modern CPUs
have some variation on a von Neumann architecture, which treats code
as data. If a variable can hold a reference to data, why can't that
data be code? And it's not a far step from there to making code
directly manipulable.

(There are stranger things than that in programming, such as languages
that treat types as data and let you manipulate *those* dynamically.
Ultimately, in a von Neumann computer, it's all just data anyway.)

Treating code as data goes back to Goedel, Turing, and Church, all of
whom developed mathematics that could manipulate mathematical
expressions (Goedel-numbering, Turing machines, and lambda calculus).
They were inspired by Hilbert, who was curious about how far
mathematics could be formalized - specifically, if mathematics could
be extended to the point where you could algorithmically generate all
true mathematical statements.

As it turns out, you can't; but as Gregory Chaitin has pointed out,
this was one of the happiest failures ever in mathematics, since it
led more or less directly to modern information technology.

So: if you want to see formally why you can assign a function to a
variable, take a look at lambda calculus (various introductions to
Scheme are often good at explaining it) or Goedel-coding (Hofstadter's
_Goedel, Escher, Bach_ is a popular, if peripatetic, introduction) or
Turing machines. But it's really not such a stretch; and once you get
used to it, you'll find it can be quite a useful feature, since it
lets you express some solutions very elegantly.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Prisoner at War wrote:

<snip>

Why would you expect programmers to be good at writing books?
Programmers do not tend to be people with high-level language
qualifications (more math and science) and they do not tend to be people
who spend much of their time writing prose.

It is a common misconception disproved by several studies regarding the
human brain that humans who are good at math and the sciences are naturally
bad at language, and artistic skills. Rather the opposite is true.

That said, please do not feed the troll.


PointedEars

 

[Richard Cornford]

It is a common misconception disproved by several studies
regarding the human brain that humans who are good at math
and the sciences are naturally bad at language, and artistic
skills. Rather the opposite is true.

I made a statement about trends in the possession of high-level
qualifications, not a generalisation about abilities.

That said, please do not feed the troll.

I have been considering "Prisoner at War" as a candidate for my 'George
Hester' filter, but he can have one more shot at getting into line
first.

Richard.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

I made a statement about trends in the possession of high-level
qualifications, not a generalisation about abilities.

ACK. I would argue then thatthis does not appear to be true to me either.
In my experience, good programmers also tend to be good at language,
particularly English (no matter their native language), because it is a
requirement to learn a programming language properly (key words are in
English, manuals are written in English, IDEs and last but not least
newsgroups are primarily in English aso.) And ISTM in programmer's (or
software developer's) education, English, particularly business English, is
often considered a requirement, and therefore a mandatory subject. YMMV.


PointedEars

 

[Prisoner at War]

Sorry, ment 1972

LOL, that's when they made me!!

1964 I got my ham licence and was doing logic with discrete NAND and NOR
chips, the microprocessos being to expensive for me, but long before that
we were experimenting with single transistor logic.

Wow...you must be a regular Wikipedia in sneakers!

Don't know about grades in school, seems a locally variable phenomenon.
?

Never used the C64,
I went straight from homebuild Signetics 2650 to the Amiga.

Aaaaahhhhhh, the Amiga!! Never really caught on here in the States,
though in Europe that A500 was all the rage I remember from the
magazines back then...if it weren't for mismanagement (something that
seems to be happening at Motorola, too, who used to make the Amiga's
CPU) they would have been the "Apple" of today's hi-tech market! I
never even owned an Amiga but was all set to get one when the company
started to really go out of business, as if all of a sudden...to think
I almost bought an orphan! But I would have loved it so much!

And whatever happened to 3-D ray-tracing? I remember the Amiga really
showcased that, and it was everyone's wet-dream thinking that one day
animations could be done by anyone in 3D raytracing in realtime!

Those were the days...funny enough, it was at its very peak of
achievement that things started to go south, real quick too...the old
Origin Systems franchise "Ultima," the Commodore Amiga, raytracing,
the Berlin Wall, LOL....

Just as well, though -- the days of "proprietary PCs" were fast fading
anyway...no brand-loyalty these days but, perhaps ironically, a lot
more consumer choice!

 

[Prisoner at War]

Why would you expect programmers to be good at writing books?

Well, I guess maybe 'cause they'd have to be so organized when it
comes to code, and what's a how-to book than a really elaborate set of
subroutines.... ;-)

Programmers do not tend to be people with high-level language
qualifications (more math and science) and they do not tend to be people
who spend much of their time writing prose.

Well, I don't mean that they have to be good writers in the sense of
"lively" writers -- and they do have editors, too -- but even just
stuff like typos and getting variable names mixed up...I just thought
these folks would have been more naturally "correct" or precise about
such matters...you expect a combat vet to flinch every time a tire
blows out, and one would expect a real programmer to be very tidy and
mindful of details....

Then there is the question of why would programmers spend their time
writing books? A good programmer, specialising in any area where there
was significant demand, can earn a very good remittance by programming,
while the market for a specialised programming book (with a subject such
as javascript) has a relatively small market and much completion in that
market. An author will only get a relatively small royalty for the sale
of a single book, and even with heavy promotion the total number of
individual books sold will not be that great. The economics may dictate
that the only people for whom writing books is worthwhile application of
their time are the people in the worst position to put anything
worthwhile into those books.

LOL -- "those who can't do, teach; and those who can't teach, teach
gym"??

 

[Prisoner at War]

It is a common misconception disproved by several studies regarding the
human brain that humans who are good at math and the sciences are naturally
bad at language, and artistic skills. Rather the opposite is true.

That's just the thing: I believe "intelligence" to be "universal" and
not "specialized" and thus I expect intelligent people, like
programmers, to be rather good at many fields.

Maybe it's just the age we live in, an age of specialization where
very few are privy to "the whole" anymore...? Certainly everything in
society seems to encourage a kind of single-mindedness that probably
translates over into many aspects of the human being....

That said, please do not feed the troll.

What?? Getting down to name-calling...for what, all over top-
posting??

Damn, you're so judgmental and humorless, I don't know why you don't
try getting into politics or or police-work or something.

 

[Prisoner at War]

I made a statement about trends in the possession of high-level
qualifications, not a generalisation about abilities.

I read it that way, too...after all, one's qualifications implies
one's abilities!

I have been considering "Prisoner at War" as a candidate for my 'George
Hester' filter, but he can have one more shot at getting into line
first.

I don't know why people have such instant and intense dislikes, but
thank goodness usenet is a free forum -- free from political
correctness and other conventional b.s.

 

[Prisoner at War]

Why not?

Well, it was the old stereotype of "logic" as being "strictly
categorical"...hence, JavaScript, with its variables that could be
functions that could be methods of objects as well as objects in
themselves...it's like dealing with a hermaphrodite or something!

Javascript (and other ECMAScript implementations) is a "functional"
programming language, which means that functions are first-class
entities: they can be created and manipulated in various ways while
the program runs. Other well-known functional languages are the LISP
family (LISP, Scheme), the ML family (Standard ML, OCaml), and Haskell.

Ah, yeah, I was just realizing that part of my difficulties lie in my
"conceptual confusion" due to preconceptions over logic and
programming...so I ordered a book last week called "How Computer
Programming Works" which I hope will clarify these matters for me,
since I'm trying to fit the round peg of JavaScript into a layman's
square hole!

But even non-functional languages usually offer support for variables
that refer to functions and can be used to evaluate functions. C has
function pointer types. COBOL has procedure-pointers. Most modern CPUs
have some variation on a von Neumann architecture, which treats code
as data. If a variable can hold a reference to data, why can't that
data be code? And it's not a far step from there to making code
directly manipulable.

Sure, if the final analysis, I'm all for "usability" over
"correctness" (viz., that image-swap "document.name.src="xx.xxx"
thread)...I just had very trigonometry-101 kind of "mental boxes"
which weren't holding JavaScript "entities" very well....

(There are stranger things than that in programming, such as languages
that treat types as data and let you manipulate *those* dynamically.
Ultimately, in a von Neumann computer, it's all just data anyway.)

Heck, I understand that at least one Native American language has no
future tense! Computer programming -- even this little dabbling in
JavaScript I'm trying to do -- has really made me think about
intelligence and consciousness and life....

Treating code as data goes back to Goedel, Turing, and Church, all of
whom developed mathematics that could manipulate mathematical
expressions (Goedel-numbering, Turing machines, and lambda calculus).
They were inspired by Hilbert, who was curious about how far
mathematics could be formalized - specifically, if mathematics could
be extended to the point where you could algorithmically generate all
true mathematical statements.

I know that "G" somehow proved it couldn't be but for some reason it
just seems like it ought to be! I wonder why there's this inherent
"feeling" that a "system" should be able to derive all its own "rules"
or "truths"...I wonder what's the psychological basis behind
that...it's a very strong feeling for some reason....

As it turns out, you can't; but as Gregory Chaitin has pointed out,
this was one of the happiest failures ever in mathematics, since it
led more or less directly to modern information technology.

Wow, I didn't know that that helped make for modern info tech...good
grief, I wonder what the next hundred years hold....

So: if you want to see formally why you can assign a function to a
variable, take a look at lambda calculus (various introductions to
Scheme are often good at explaining it) or Goedel-coding (Hofstadter's
_Goedel, Escher, Bach_ is a popular, if peripatetic, introduction)

Peripatetic indeed! But most pleasurable...unfortunately, I got stuck
on one of his "puzzles" and now have to read the whole thing over
again to see what I forgot!!

As for calculus...uhhh, bad experience with a professor, and have
forgot all my trig besides...sigh, so much to learn, and only half a
lifetime! (Since the other half is spent sleeping, being a wage-
slave, and sundry other "administrative tasks.")

or
Turing machines. But it's really not such a stretch; and once you get
used to it, you'll find it can be quite a useful feature, since it
lets you express some solutions very elegantly.

Well, by slowly doing, bit by bit, I'm getting used to it, yes...I
just thought JavaScript was supposed to be "easy" or "simple" or a
"toy"! Of course, that's how I was approaching it, and now it's like
I can't find the "esc" key on this thinggy!

 

[Richard Cornford]

I read it that way, too...

Which way? As not being a generalisation about abilities?

after all, one's qualifications implies
one's abilities!

No they don't. The pressures and influences that guide people's paths
through the acquiring of qualifications don't tend to result in people
for whom the qualifications acquired reflect the full spectrum of their
abilities. Qualifications may highlight specific abilities, but that is
as far as they go.

I don't know why people have such instant and intense
dislikes, but thank goodness usenet is a free forum --
free from political correctness and other conventional b.s.

Yes, you have freedom to choose how you will behave, and everyone else
had freedom to choose how they will react.

Well, I am decided; you are in.

Richard.

 

[Prisoner at War]

Which way? As not being a generalisation about abilities?

Goodness, willful ignorance for the sake of picking a fight?

No they don't. The pressures and influences that guide people's paths
through the acquiring of qualifications don't tend to result in people
for whom the qualifications acquired reflect the full spectrum of their
abilities. Qualifications may highlight specific abilities, but that is
as far as they go.

It's true what you say: many lawyers aren't very detail-oriented; many
doctors don't care about people's well-being; many artists have no
talent of the sort worthy of the name, that moves civilization
forward.

On the other hand, it would be quite hard to be a lawyer with reading
aptitude better than most people's; it would be almost impossible to
suffer through med school and residency without some concern for
humanity; it would be really unusual to not realize sooner or later a
lack of talent for something one keeps doing every day.

Again, I think this is another glass half-full/half-empty kind of
situation...just how you choose to look at it.

Yes, you have freedom to choose how you will behave, and everyone else
had freedom to choose how they will react.

You have no freedom at all if something I say or do can cause you such
consternation as to behave so poorly!

Well, I am decided; you are in.

I think it would be an *honor* to be on your shit-list.

People who keep shit-lists are shits best avoided anyway.

What petty little computer gremlins!