On 10/08/17 09:09 AM, roger peppe wrote:
On 10 August 2017 at 13:39, David Collier-Brown <davecb...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/08/17 02:47 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote:
I beg to differ. Most Java apps I have seen over many years almost
unanimously suffer from over-modeling.
A former customer did a deep, thoughtful, *thorough* model of bracket
tournaments, without any attempt to abstract the salient features. Java
represented it beautifully, in complete detail...
So it's now impossible for a single person to keep it in their brain, and
every attempt to change it introduces new, surprising "features".
In effect, the ability to represent anything easily led to our error: we
represented _everything_.
I remember something similar happening with some Haskell I wrote.
Because the type system was so powerful, it felt wrong not use it to
represent everything, which ended up problematic. Frivolous thought:
I wonder if there's an (far-fetched) analogy to be made between this
and dropout techniques in neural networks - if our type system is really
powerful, it's easy for our type structures to "overfit" to the current
problem being solved, making it less adaptable and maintainable when
the problem changes.
I quite agree: I suspect it a tradeoff, in which the more you can easily
represent, the more you need to carefully architect exactly *what* you
represent.
--dave
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
dav...@spamcop.net | -- Mark Twain
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
