Object-oriented design is the roman numerals of computing. Rob Pike Joe Armstrong said in his thesis that Java is not even suitable for programming. It is good idea to try to realize why. The fundamental flaw, which cannot be eliminated, comes from the fact that the “designers” of Java lacked a required mathematical background. The idea of mimicking the “real world” in which “objects having its internal state” is exactly what is wrong....

Have you heard such “advice” before? Every single Chud would tell you this - just learn to code and do web3shit, it is the future. Well, I have something to say too. The amount of learning one has to have in order to write a simple “smart-contract” is insane. First of all, both Ethereum and Solidity is an utter crap “designed” by incompetent, unqualified, narcissistic amateurs, some barely out of a high school....

It takes time to get more-or-less familiar with the major branches of human knowledge, which is traditionally called a classic education. This gives one, among other things, the ability to see what other people call “connections” between seemingly unrelated “things”. This ability, in turn, helps to see things as they really are, which is the most important part of life, and goes back to the Upanishads and the Buddha. The most difficult and subtle “thing” to see (as it really is), is, of course, your own self, and the habit of doing so, which is called introspection, which ultimately leads to self-knowledge and self-control, is the most sought after ability since beginning of time (at least in the Orient)....

The true, actual, measurable productivity comes not from utilizing some advanced tools, but, like everything else in life, from seeing things as they really are and therefore doing the right thing at each level (of abstraction). Tools give some additional 20%, perhaps, but the main productivity gains are from not wasting time and efforts and just doing the right thing (which is what distinguishes experts and masters). For CS it means understanding all the deep, underlying principles behind the concepts and abstractions....

There is only one true way (the proper way) to program. Just as there is only one “reality”, one “truth” (which correctly describes What Is) and The Right Way (of the Buddha, which means being firmly grounded in What Is). Imagine, if you will, that you are writing a program for yourself which will trade your own life savings on some “exchange”. Not for other people, not other people’s money. You for yourself....

There is an inportant subtlety when on is trying to interpret what a Neural Network actually does – each neuron, it seems, gets activated on a different set of inputs which corresponds to very different set of features. It is most prominent in a computer vision settings, when a selected neuron reacts on completely unrelated parts of inputs, say of cats and of cars. Let’s see what is going on out there....

So, you want to add these async/~await/ keywords? First of all, it has already been seriously researched by the C#/F# .NET guys. Just learn what they have come up with. One’s own principle-guided reasoning could proceed like this: The fundamental difference between ordinary procedures and async procedures is the whole protocol for calling and returning of values, and dealing with actual implementation of the corresponding mechanisms (abstract at this point, but has to reuse what is already out there)....

There is another meme “scientific” paper (well, it is a “research paper”, which does not have be correct lmao) about trying to interpret of what transformers actually do. When the hype was at its peak, I wrote an article about “handwaving with too abstract math” or “sweeping the meaning under the rug”. I had very strong intuition that I have seen this before, and now I will show it. Where all have seen this kind of sophisticated bullshitting with abstract entities taken out of context (from another, highly remote and ephemeral levels of abstraction) bing used to explain a natural phenomena?...

I finally found a well-written no-bullshit book about CS. It says, among other things: There is no need to define a representation of the values False and True in terms of values of some other type. Conceptually, values of type Bool are simply (denoted by) the expressions False and True. Of course, the computer’s internal representation of Bool and all other data is in terms of bits, but we don’t need to know any of the details of how that works to write programs....

A small disclaimer: I’ve lived in India for a few years, I have some good friends there and I think I begin to really understand the some cultural aspects which govern this vastly complex and spontaneous society. Nowadays everyone, it seems, is either a programmer or an AI researcher or both. When they are not a crapto “engineers”, of course. Just like chef Gusteau from the Ratatouille movie famously proclaimed – “Anyone can cook”....