[1]: https://shipwrecklibrary.com/the-modern-word/pynchon/sl-essa...

As a java guy and think python is weird, I don't think this sucks.

But, I also agree that can serve as terrible intro to programming if you start programming right away without understanding the basics of abstractions. But, often when we have tools either designed for a purpose in mind or a dominant paridigm or reaction to existing set of tooling, this can result in understandable yet extreme abstractions.

Java is designed with OOP in mind and it kind of makes sense to have the user to think in terms of lego blocks of interfaces. Every method or class needs to have clear understanding of its users.

public - software handle is for all users

protected - software handle for current and extending classes

default - software is exposed to current package

private - software is restricted to be used in current class alone and nowhere else

So, the beginning of java programming starts with interface exposed to the user or other programmers. Is it weird and extreme. Yes. At least, it is consistent.

I think I have mentioned this before in HN too. I am not from CS background and just learnt the trade as I was doing the job, I mean even the normal stuff.

We have a project that tries reify live objects into human readable form. Final representation is so complicated with lot of types and the initial representation is less complicated.

In order to make it readable, if there is any common or similar data nodes, we have to compare and try to combine them i.e. find places that can be made into methods and find the relevant arguments for all the calls (kind of).

Initial implementation did the transformation into the final form first, and then started the comparison. So, the comparison have to deal with all the different combinations of the types we have in final representation now, which made the whole thing so complex and has been maintained by generation of engineers that nobody had clear idea how it was working.

Then, I read about hashmap implementation later (yep, I am that dumb) and it was a revelation. So, we did following things:

1. We created a hash for skeleton that has to remain the same through all the set of comparisons and transformation of the "common nodes", (it can be considered as something similar to methods or arguments) and doing the comparison for nodes with matching skeletal hashes and

2. created a separate layer that does the comparison and creating common nodes on initial primitive form and then doing the transformation as the second layer (so you don't have to deal with all types in final representation) and

3. Don't type. Yes. Data is simplest abstraction and if your logic can made into data or some properties, please do yourself a favor and make them so. We found lot of places, where weird class hierarchies can be converted into data properties.

Basically, it is a dumb multi pass decompiler.

That did not just speed up the process, but resulted in much more readable and understandable abstractions and code. I do not know, if this is widely useful but it helped in one project. There is no silver bullet, but types were actual problem for us and so we solved it this way.

> That’s not to say that computers couldn’t do what the brain does, including consciousness and emotions,

Yes. Fundamental building blocks are simple and physical in nature and follow the computational aspect good enough to serve as nice approximations

> but that wouldn’t have any particular relation to how DNA/RNA and protein synthesis works.

Hmm... transistors are not neural networks so? I am sorry, I am a non native speaker and maybe I am not communicating things properly. I am trying to say, the organic or human is different manifestation of order - one is chemical and other is electronic. We have emotions and consciousness, but we can agree we are made of cells that send electric pulses to each other and primitive in nature. And even emotions and beliefs are physical in nature (Capgras syndrome for example).