Paragone

This is a bit beyond architecture, but being competent to build a mathematically bug-free API is probably something that few programmers would even bother trying to compete-against…

https://leanpub.com/algebra-driven-design

I think there is a fundamental mis-framing, throughout the entire software/development understanding…

I think that the architecture needs to be simultaneously agilely-devloped, but into an executable-model, a kind of toy-implimentation, so it is easy to change the architecture, low-cost, BEFORE one converts it into load-bearing, & therefore unchangeable architecture ( architecture’s the hardest thing to change, as it’s most-fundamental )

So, I think that the proper way is to do it in 2 stages:

1. agilely develop the architecture, until ALL required-kinds-of-function are working, in the toy-model, & one has re-architected it so that the structure is right, & then
2. set about converting it from the high-level-language to whatever production-language it is that is efficiency-optimal, for production-scale.

This is part of an idea from years ago: I read in a Wiley GAAP book that I happened to be glancing into, that it’s a violation of GAAP to prototype any project in any language other than the final-implimentation-language, & expense that prototype.

Which is totally insane!

Prototype in the highest-level-language you can, to get the domain+architecture right, then reimpliment what you have to in the most production-efficient/effective language for that project.

GAAP ( of that year ) is categorically wrong: it penalizes optimal-prototyping.

It was years-later before I discovered that an English mathematician ( roundish ginger, worked in Glasgow, no idea what his name was, sorry ) had studied the difference between complex projects which worked vs ones which died, & it was the visual-spacial-representation-of-the-model, & the complete-coverage executable-model which made the successes win.

So, I just put those ideas together.

_ /\ _

I’d recommend having a banner/sign which explains why you are doing-so, so that you won’t be accused/convicted of what others assume you to have been meaning.

It’s nearly-impossible to get people to understand what one means, when one’s motivation isn’t identical with theirs.

& discovering how their-motivation is fundamentally-different from one’s-own has to happen before one can have ANY chance at dismantling miscommunication.

& miscommunications now can have years-in-prison attached to them.

_ /\ _

< sigh >

There WAS a video on yt by a Norwegian man on why OO languages push people into spreading side-effects throughout the code, whereas in Haskell, side-effects are optimally conserved to Main.hs

I can’t find that video, now.

He was on stage, a talk of some kind, not as formal as a university-lecture, so it was some conference, of some kind… ( in case anybody else finds it )

I think that that principle is contradicting what the article is saying… ( skimmed the rest, I think he’s generally right, but burying side-effects seems to be wrong, from Haskell’s perspective, & I think Haskell’s right, generally. )

_ /\ _

Interesting point…

Maybe we should all have Spring Cleanup, where we get our instances to be configured to better settings, to keep tuning-up the fediverse?

_ /\ _

Nature says: IF you want the current regime ( in any ecology! ) displaced,

THEN displace it!

Don’t like Facebook’s monopoly? Displace it.

Don’t like political-parties’ railroading our world into ideological cuckery?

Displace it!

Etc.

For effectiveness, it’d require leaders, which the anarchists prohibit from their world, so they’re not going to help displace the organized-idiocy.

Communist & fascist imperialism will do EVERYTHING IT CAN to break any threat to their eventual-totalitarian-world-dominion.

Concentration-of-wealth-archy/oligarchy won’t tolerate any such thing, either.

& worst is the rude fact that as people’s contexts change, THEY change, so it has to be lead by people who’ve earned self-conquering, who aren’t malleable in principles or integrity, no matter how much force they are plied with, or how relentlessly they are plied with that force.

The people who felt class-elevated to be hobnobbing with Epstein kept their mouths shut when they shouldn’t have, simply because they’d be knocked lower down the social-status-hierarchy if they broke-ranks, & that social-pressure was sufficient to protect the entire Epstein-Class for decades.

That mechanism is in all of us.

It can be broken, through years of relentless pushing oneself into facing-karma, & breaking one’s unconscious-mind’s ignorance-dominion on one’s life.

Just identifying some of the key forces/factors that have to be dealt-with, in order for global-grass-roots-revolution to work, among the populations who are educated well/correctly enough to value critical-thinking.

In all the regions where education did what Leninism & Fox do, prevent that ( remember how the Republicans eradicated critical-thinking from all their territory after Trump won his 2nd term? ) … thos regions are no-longer recoverable, in WW3’s next 6-decades.

One has to accept that only a fraction of humankind will fight-off ideology-displacing-reason, & that saving the rest, thanks to education, isn’t possible.

Basic principle that Sunzi/Sun Tzu/Master Sun identified, 2.5 millenia ago: IF one is outnumbered, either defend, if one is strong, or evade, if one is weak.

Critical-reasoning is, globally, weak.

We either deal-with-that XOR we hand victory to the ideologues.

_ /\ _

That principle is important.

In any system where goods ( of some kind ) are not owned by the people using them, then you have to make those goods near-impossible-to-break, which is part of where communist Brutalism aesthetic comes from.

There was a book by a shelled-moluscs scientist who was born blind: he sees through his fingertips.

He’s the one who pointed that principle out, having lived in communism for part of his life, & once the principle’s understood, it can’t be unseen.

Know somebody who cares for their tools like jewelry?

They’d all be destroyed, pronto, in communism.

That’s the price that gets paid when nobody owns what they’re using.

And THAT principle, means that it then becomes possible to design means-sharing-systems that can work.

The e-scooter rental systems that many cities now have, is 1 example: idiotproof, indestructible, & they enable significant improvement in the city.

But consider contractors who need to be able to get anywhere, with their tools…

public transport may break their work.

Rurally, not having a vehicle’s … often suicide.

& if the city’s designed like US cities, towns, & villages, where they engineer it to break any other form of transport, then you cannot get to the supermarket without a car, from many locations.

It takes much more whole-systems orientation, to get it right, than what the US has been doing…

< shruggeth >

just some perspectives, is all…

_ /\ _