The REALLY EASY WAY To Understand Continuations, Memoization, Generics.... and Social Networking (AKA ... The RoSemantic Web)

by M. David Peterson

I sometimes find myself in complete and total awe by how complicated people can make something that simply doesn't need to be complicated by ANY stretch of the imagination. For example,

In regards to the understanding of "Man" and "Machine", I've come to five ABSOLUTE "without a single, solitary, doubt in my mind" conclusions thus far in life...

1 - As the number of levers, control knobs, and bypass valves on or around a device increase, there is a proportionate increase in the level of "understanding" in regards to how something works by a similar proportionate of individuals who will claim they understand how something works.

2 - As the number of levers, control knobs, and bypass valves contained on or around a device decrease, there is a proportionate decrease in the level of understanding of how something works by a similar proportionate decrease in individuals who will claim they understand how something works.

3 - The fewer the levers, control knobs, and bypass valves; the easier something is to understand.

4 - The fewer the levers, control knobs, and bypass valves, generally speaking, the better something works, and even more so, the more reliable something tends to be.

5 - If you want to understand how a particular device works, ask the guy who invented the version with the fewest number of levers, control knobs, and bypass valves.

So, for example,

6 Comments

M. David Peterson
2006-07-01 01:06:45
and before anybody else has a chance... yes, I know the Common Lisp spec is a bazillion pages long, and in many ways (historically, or better said, for historical reasons) overcomplicated.


But if not mistaken, I'm guessingthats probably one of the reasons Guy Steele got together with Gerald Sussman and developed Scheme, which has lived and breathed (and chanted :) the "Minimalist Mantra" every morning, noon, and night since day one.

M. David Peterson
2006-07-01 01:24:01
One other comment before I get beat down by the W3C et. al...


I'm not suggesting that RDF, SPARQL, OWL, etc... are useless...


They're just not HTML.


If we require people to make sense of all of this, and to use this in their daily lives.


They won't.


So, in other words.... I'm not suggesting these are completely useless. Just completely useless by 99.7% of the Worlds population unless they have no clue they are using them.


Thats not to suggest people should be tricked into using them... e.g. Google, and MSN, and Yahoo, obviously have some pretty complicated stuff going on behind the scenes.


I've never seen it, nor do I EVER WANT TO! (which is a good thing as I don't think I will be getting any invitations from either of these three companies asking me if I'd like to come and take a tour and learn about all their secret magic sauce that makes all the blah taste good better than it would without the secret magic sauce. :D


There are those folks who live and breathe this stuff.


And there's like 8.7 billion more who don't.


2006-07-01 04:37:15
8.7 billion? Who are the other 2 billion?
M. David Peterson
2006-07-01 05:29:04
The other 2 billion?


While I will have to check to make sure, there's a pretty solid chance that if they exist at all, they're Friends of Ed Dumbill.


Let me check his FOAF feed and get back to you. ;)

M. David Peterson
2006-07-01 05:37:53
It seems Ed's FOAF count isn't due to hit 8.7 billion until the year 2039...


2039 8,707,597,999


> http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html


Does it count if I say "I meant 6.5 billion... I mean, everybody knows Ed doesn't have 8.7 billion friends!"?


Probably not, huh?


damn.

M. David Peterson
2006-07-01 05:47:21
How 'bout "6.5... 8.7.... I mean, really.... What's 2.2 billion people among Friend's of a Friend"?