Readit NewsEvery action in the known universe (and surely in some unknown ones too) results in a trade-off. This is maybe the only precept on software architecture that doesn't "depends" on anything and is closer to natural law.
You don’t need push, it’s just a performance optimization that almost never justifies using a whole new tool.
> Long story short: MS isn't a saint. They are a business. And they have behaved relatively nice for so long that some young adults don't know any other side of MS now.
They are a business. You seem to misunderstand that businesses cannot behave like charities.
Being a business implies being for-profit.
Nobody said open source had to be free as in free beer, it just had to be free as in freedom.
It's their prerogative to make the plugins marketplace to alternative editors or not. Servers cost money. It's a business.
Does Matt Mullenweg has to let WPEngine sap server resources? Arguably not; and this opinion comes from a guy (me) that strongly dislikes WordPress (and by extension: Matt and Automattic).
It's not measuring the "useful" kind of stress, like when you're on-call or in active incident handling.
It's just measuring how you approach problem solving and coding while being judged and looked at, on the spot, which is *hardly* a common scenario in real life!
We burned a few decades saying solar and wind are the solution. This set us back greatly in the struggle to reduce greenhouse emissions.
As an system-oriented person, give me a healthy combination of available, battle tested, new and promising solutions, fine-tuning weaknesses with strengths.
Go to the stadium to solve your local team/visiting team issues. You are all falling to Big Fossil antics.
"Time is not a thing in math" is not understanding what math is. Time is another ideal object following certain rules under a given domain. Programming is coming up with objects of different size, with different characteristics, with interact at different points in time, i.e. following certain rules.
What I claimed was that in computer science we often discuss things in terms that would not be the natural way of dealing with it in maths. We do that because our focus is different, and our abstractions are different.
It doesn't mean it's not math. It means it's not useful to insist that it isn't a different field, and its obtuse when people insist it's all the same.
I think the problem-solving part of coding requires math skills, while the organization part requires writing skills. The organization part affects the problem-solving part, because if you write messy code (that you can’t reread once you forget or extend without rewriting) you’ll quickly get overwhelmed.
Writing large math proofs also requires organization skills, since you’ll refer to earlier sections of your proof and may have to modify it when you encounter issues. But to me, math seems to have more “big steps”: sudden insights that can’t be derived from writing (“how did you discover this?”), and concepts that are intrinsically complicated so one can’t really explain them no matter how well they can write. Whereas programming has more “small steps”: even someone who’s not smart (but has grit) can write an impressive program, if they write one component at a time and there aren’t too many components that rely on each other.
I've always found the car metaphor to work very good to understand this: A car is a machine that can transport itself to point A to B (some other rules apply). There are different types of cars, but you certainly haven't understood the definition of you say that something is not a car because is not a Volvo, or because it doesn't look like a Ford, when it's clearly able to transport itself.
Math is the study of ideal objects and the way they behave or are related to each others. We have many branches of mathematics because people have invented so many objects and rules to play with them. Programming is nothing if not this very definition. The fact that you don't have to "use math" when programming is not really addressing the point, it's like saying a car is not a car because it has no discernible brand.
But it's hardly a useful grouping any more. You can study and do well in computer science with minimal knowledge of most of the core mathematical subjects.
While graph theory certainly crosses over into math, you can cover most of the parts of it relevant to most computer science as a discussion of algorithms that would not be the natural way of dealing with them for most mathematicians.
I agree is not a useful grouping in practice. I'm just interested in what makes you think like you do.