Whenever this issue comes up (and on HN, it never appears to die), I'm reminded of an eye-opening moment I had reading Rob Pike's excelle...
Whenever this issue comes up (and on HN, it never appears to die), I'm reminded of an eye-opening moment I had reading Rob Pike's excellent essay "Less is Exponentially More" ( http://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponentia... ). An excerpt (original emphasis): "Early in the rollout of Go I was told by someone that he could not imagine working in a language without generic types. As I have reported elsewhere, I found that an odd remark...What it says is that he finds writing containers like lists of ints and maps of strings an unbearable burden. I find that an odd claim. I spend very little of my programming time struggling with those issues, even in languages without generic types...But more important, what it says is that types are the way to lift that burden. Types . Not polymorphic functions or language primitives or helpers of other kinds, but types ." It seems to me that people program heavily with types because that's what compilers are really good at. Therefore that's what most languages give us. But I don't want to be constructing huge, complex type hierarchies with every application. If I'm spending more time on that than the actual problem domain, generic type systems are more of a problem than a solution. I don't use a hammer because I love driving in nails, I use it because it's the best way to stick two pieces of wood together. (edit: perhaps I should clarify that I'm referring to type hierarchies within the application itself as an intrinsic part of design, not language type hierarchies)
Posted by bkeroack on Sep 30, 2014, 4:26 PM
Tags
Related issues
- Not sure what you suggest to do.
- Why is this not yet published on the official website and why is there no CVE?
- The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
- The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
- (My comment is about detached houses).
- The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.9,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (Other)
Not sure what you suggest to do.
NewWhy is this not yet published on the official website and why is there no CVE?
NewThe biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
(My comment is about detached houses).
The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
> steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
Whenever this issue comes up (and on HN, it never appears to die), I'm reminded of an eye-opening moment I had reading Rob Pike's excelle...
Whenever this issue comes up (and on HN, it never appears to die), I'm reminded of an eye-opening moment I had reading Rob Pike's excellent essay "Less is Exponentially More" ( http://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponentia... ). An excerpt (original emphasis): "Early in the rollout of Go I was told by someone that he could not imagine working in a language without generic types. As I have reported elsewhere, I found that an odd remark...What it says is that he finds writing containers like lists of ints and maps of strings an unbearable burden. I find that an odd claim. I spend very little of my programming time struggling with those issues, even in languages without generic types...But more important, what it says is that types are the way to lift that burden. Types . Not polymorphic functions or language primitives or helpers of other kinds, but types ." It seems to me that people program heavily with types because that's what compilers are really good at. Therefore that's what most languages give us. But I don't want to be constructing huge, complex type hierarchies with every application. If I'm spending more time on that than the actual problem domain, generic type systems are more of a problem than a solution. I don't use a hammer because I love driving in nails, I use it because it's the best way to stick two pieces of wood together. (edit: perhaps I should clarify that I'm referring to type hierarchies within the application itself as an intrinsic part of design, not language type hierarchies)
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.