Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Gregg H.
320 followers
320 followers
About
Gregg's posts

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Does anyone want to buy a banjo?
PhotoPhotoPhotoPhoto
June 26, 2013
4 Photos - View album

Post has attachment
First pair of ice skates.
Photo

Post has attachment

Does anyone have ideas/advice for using a functional programming paradigm in Go? I know it has first-class functions, but I'm curious how the collective would implement things like Map and Reduce functions in a generic way. I'm playing around with some ideas, and if they work out like I hope, perhaps I will post them later.

Since we're doing introductions: I'm a CS student building my senior project in Go. It's a basic (multi-threaded) Virtual Machine with an assembler. I'll be starting on the compiler shortly. Go has been fantastic for this project.

Post has shared content
"It has become clear that OO zealots are afraid of data."
A few years ago I saw this page: http://www.csis.pace.edu/~bergin/patterns/ppoop.html 

Local discussion focused on figuring out whether this was a joke or not. For a while, we felt it had to be even though we knew it wasn't. Today I'm willing to admit the authors believe what is written there. They are sincere.

But... I'd call myself a hacker, at least in their terminology, yet my solution isn't there. Just search a small table! No objects required. Trivial design, easy to extend, and cleaner than anything they present. Their "hacker solution" is clumsy and verbose. Everything else on this page seems either crazy or willfully obtuse. The lesson drawn at the end feels like misguided epistemology, not technological insight.

It has become clear that OO zealots are afraid of data. They prefer statements or constructors to initialized tables. They won't write table-driven tests. Why is this? What mindset makes a multilevel type hierarchy with layered abstractions better than searching a three-line table? I once heard someone say he felt his job was to remove all while loops from everyone's code, replacing them with object stuff. Wat?

But there's good news. The era of hierarchy-driven, keyword-heavy, colored-ribbons-in-your-textook orthodoxy seems past its peak. More people are talking about composition being a better design principle than inheritance. And there are even some willing to point at the naked emperor; see http://prog21.dadgum.com/156.html for example. There are others. Or perhaps it's just that the old guard is reasserting itself.

Object-oriented programming, whose essence is nothing more than programming using data with associated behaviors, is a powerful idea. It truly is. But it's not always the best idea. And it is not well served by the epistemology heaped upon it.

Sometimes data is just data and functions are just functions.

One of the most satisfying things in the world is clicking "Decline" when itunes asks you to agree to their terms.

Post has attachment
Wait while more posts are being loaded