Friam

Re: Abducktion

Classic

List

Threaded

42 messages Options

123

Nick Thompson

Re: Abducktion

This also is very interesting. Peirce typing, as you put it, equals “abduction”. Is “Duck Typing” a term of art, somewhere? Or is that your neologism. I like it.

Actually, from Peirce’s point of view, I perhaps made a mistake with

“It's a duck!” (Some might say I was guilty of a canard. Heh. Heh.)

I should have written, “It’s more probably a duck.” The point is, channeling my mentor again, that “abducktion (=duck-typing, as you put it) is a probabilistic enterprise. As we accumulate concordant properties between the white feathered thing in front of us and what we know about ducks, the creature seems more probably to be a duck. No poke is ever the last poke. Each poke leads to future pokes. After “Poke-squawk” works, we might try to see if the creature goes well in a cassoulet, and if the result of that experiment is also, “yes”, then the creature is even more probably a duck.

But I really need to learn more about “duck-typing”.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 10:47 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?)

Ha! Nick, you DO understand computer science: Duck Typing has been popular as a way of describing loosely typed dynamic languages. I guess to be fair I'll start calling it Peirce Typing.

-- Owen

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen, John,

A really interesting exchange. It feeds into my conversation with my Peirce
Mentor about science being at its root experimentation and experimentation
being, at its root, poking the world with a stick. ("It walks like a duck,
it quacks like a duck. Does it squawk like a duck? [poke!] Yes. It's a
duck!") I render this in language, but the whole thing could be done
without language at all, unless one is one of those people who insists that
all thought is in language.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:42 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] science and language (was How do forces work?)

That's a _great_ counterfactual suggestion, to imagine science without
language. The way I see it, science consists of transpersonal behaviors.
I know this definition is (almost) peculiar to me. Sorry about that.
But science is unrelated to thought at all. It's all about methods and
getting other people to do what you do.

And if we can imagine that language is somehow related to grooming, e.g.
the reason humans usually don't lick their fingers and wipe smudges from
each others' faces on a regular basis is because our language has obviated
most of that behavior. We've replaced grooming with moving our jaws up and
down and emitting complex sequences of grunts.

If we can imagine that, and temporarily accept that science is unrelated to
thought, then perhaps we can imagine a language-less science? I suspect it
would be similar to the apprenticeship model for education.
It might also be similar to the ritualistic oral traditions of people like
the Celts.

But the problem I'm having imagining it comes down to the definition of
language. To what extent is abstraction (symbol manipulation) necessary for
us to call something a "language"? At bottom, I think it boils down to the
ability to _point_ at things, which requires the ability to see, an
appendage with which to point, and the neurological structures to empathize
(put yourself in the pointer's shoes). This strikes me as the root of
language. If so, a harder counterfactual is:

Can we imagine science without the ability to point at things?

I think the answer to that is, "No." But as long as we have that root,
regardless of the structure and dynamic that might grow from that root, I
think the answer is "Yes, science can exist without the implementation
details of what we now call language."

John Kennison wrote at 04/22/2013 06:49 AM:

> My first thought was that we would first need language -without

> language it is hard to imagine what consensus would look like and hard

> to imagine science. How could we say that an experiment disproved a
> hypothesis, or even that one experiment is a repetition of another?
> But without consensus, how do we get language? Maybe science and
> language develop in tandem, --assuming we are programmed to believe
> that gestures and vocal sounds mean something --which can be
> determined through experimentation. This would explain why science
> seems to start with unsophisticated statements such as "Objects tend
> to fall in a downward direction." And why it seems necessary, when
> grappling with new, abstract scientific (and mathematical) ideas to
> reduce them to simpler statements involving ideas we are already
> comfortable with. And Russ's question might be part of what is needed
> to understand abstract concepts of modern Physics. In 1962 I had a
> grad course in quantum mechanics (given by the Math Dept). It started
> with a discussion of motion in the physical world and a look at some
> of the questions we would ask. But very soon we adopted the axiom that
> the set of all questions was isomorphic to the set of all closed
> subspaces of a Hilbert space. Even the instructor admitted that this
> was a bit hard to swallow, but once we swallowed all would eventually
> become clear. I learned a lot about operators on a Hilbert space and
> even got an A in the course, but I never connected it to any ideas I
> had about the physical world.

--
glen e. p. ropella, <a href="tel:971-255-2847">971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com There is all the
difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to
make them equal. -- F.A. Hayek

--
=><= glen e. p. ropella
The suckers giving up their souls

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Owen Densmore

Re: Abducktion

Administrator

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

This also is very interesting. Peirce typing, as you put it, equals “abduction”. Is “Duck Typing” a term of art, somewhere? Or is that your neologism. I like it.

Actually, from Peirce’s point of view, I perhaps made a mistake with

“It's a duck!” (Some might say I was guilty of a canard. Heh. Heh.)

I should have written, “It’s more probably a duck.” The point is, channeling my mentor again, that “abducktion (=duck-typing, as you put it) is a probabilistic enterprise. As we accumulate concordant properties between the white feathered thing in front of us and what we know about ducks, the creature seems more probably to be a duck. No poke is ever the last poke. Each poke leads to future pokes. After “Poke-squawk” works, we might try to see if the creature goes well in a cassoulet, and if the result of that experiment is also, “yes”, then the creature is even more probably a duck.

But I really need to learn more about “duck-typing”.

Nick

In strongly typed languages, you declare what something is at compile time so the compilar can both optimize the translation into machine language, and to catch errors during compilation. Typically, in Object Oriented parlance, if you declare a variable to be a Duck, and Duck has walk, swim, quack methods (procedures), then declaring a variable duck to be a Duck lets you call duck.quack() for example.

In Duck Typing, your playing a trust game. I have an undeclared variable, named duck, that happens to have the three Duck methods. It also has a explode method, but I don't ever call that, so I rely on run time testing suites to determine that, for me it is a duck.

There are endless (and pointless) arguments made as to how "strongly typed" a language is but basically its compile vs run time discovery of errors.

From the font of all knowledge, wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing

In computer programming with object-oriented programming languages, duck typing is a style of dynamic typing in which an object's methods and propertiesdetermine the valid semantics, rather than its inheritance from a particular class or implementation of a specific interface. The name of the concept refers to theduck test, attributed to James Whitcomb Riley (see history below), which may be phrased as follows:

When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.^[1]

In duck typing, one is concerned with just those aspects of an object that are used, rather than with the type of the object itself. For example, in a non-duck-typed language, one can create a function that takes an object of type Duck and calls that object's walk and quack methods. In a duck-typed language, the equivalent function would take an object of any type and call that object's walk and quack methods. If the object does not have the methods that are called then the function signals a run-time error. If the object does have the methods, then they are executed no matter the type of the object, evoking the quotation and hence the name of this form of typing.

Duck typing is aided by habitually not testing for the type of arguments in method and function bodies, relying on documentation, clear code and testing to ensure correct use.

Russell Standish-2

Re: Abducktion

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:37:09PM -0600, Owen Densmore wrote:

>
> In duck typing, one is concerned with just those aspects of an object that
> are used, rather than with the type of the object itself. For example, in a
> non-duck-typed language, one can create a function that takes an object of
> type Duck and calls that object's walk and quack methods. In a duck-typed
> language, the equivalent function would take an object of any type and call
> that object's walk and quack methods. If the object does not have the
> methods that are called then the function signals a run-time error. If the
> object does have the methods, then they are executed no matter the type of
> the object, evoking the quotation and hence the name of this form of typing.
> Duck typing is aided by habitually *not* testing for the type of arguments
> in method and function bodies, relying on documentation, clear code and
> testing to ensure correct use.

In C++, generic programming, or static polymorphism, is often called
duck-typing. If my generic algorithm expexcts the object passed to it
have walk, quack and swim methods, then the compiler will not allow
you to pass in something that doesn't have those methods, but otherwise
there are no other restrictions on the object passed in.

This is in contrast to dynamic polymorphism, which is like Java's - the
object you pass in must inherit from a base class, which becomes part
of the documented interface of the method. "You are only allowed to
pass in ducks here, but I don't care what species they are." Side note
- Java has "generics", but you can't really do "generic programming",
or "duck-typing" in Java, AFAICT.

Obviously, in more dynamic languages like Javascript, duck-typing
errors must be caught at run time, but in static languages like C++,
they are caught at compile time.

Cheers
--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Joshua Thorp

Re: Abducktion

You can do Duck typing in Java via methods requiring Objects (the base class of all other Java objects) and using reflection to test for various properties. But it is working against the grain of the language to do so. Intersting run down of various implementations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing

--joshua

On Apr 22, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 12:37:09PM -0600, Owen Densmore wrote:
>>
>> In duck typing, one is concerned with just those aspects of an object that
>> are used, rather than with the type of the object itself. For example, in a
>> non-duck-typed language, one can create a function that takes an object of
>> type Duck and calls that object's walk and quack methods. In a duck-typed
>> language, the equivalent function would take an object of any type and call
>> that object's walk and quack methods. If the object does not have the
>> methods that are called then the function signals a run-time error. If the
>> object does have the methods, then they are executed no matter the type of
>> the object, evoking the quotation and hence the name of this form of typing.
>> Duck typing is aided by habitually *not* testing for the type of arguments
>> in method and function bodies, relying on documentation, clear code and
>> testing to ensure correct use.
>
> In C++, generic programming, or static polymorphism, is often called
> duck-typing. If my generic algorithm expexcts the object passed to it
> have walk, quack and swim methods, then the compiler will not allow
> you to pass in something that doesn't have those methods, but otherwise
> there are no other restrictions on the object passed in.
>
> This is in contrast to dynamic polymorphism, which is like Java's - the
> object you pass in must inherit from a base class, which becomes part
> of the documented interface of the method. "You are only allowed to
> pass in ducks here, but I don't care what species they are." Side note
> - Java has "generics", but you can't really do "generic programming",
> or "duck-typing" in Java, AFAICT.
>
> Obviously, in more dynamic languages like Javascript, duck-typing
> errors must be caught at run time, but in static languages like C++,
> they are caught at compile time.
>
> Cheers
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email]
> University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Russell Standish-2

Re: Abducktion

You're right. I was forgetting about java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke.

But it is a PITA doing things that way, whereas C++ generic
programming is designed for duck typing.

Cheers

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 08:16:01PM -0600, Joshua Thorp wrote:
> You can do Duck typing in Java via methods requiring Objects (the base class of all other Java objects) and using reflection to test for various properties. But it is working against the grain of the language to do so. Intersting run down of various implementations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing
>
> --joshua

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: Abducktion

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Owen,

This really quite splendid. And timely. Just as I would was thinking that the two kinds of conversations that have dominated FRIAM over the last few weeks were going to permanently bifurcate, you bring them together with Abducktion and duck-typing. Your exposition was pretty user-friendly, but still I am not completely sure I understand. Is duck-type roughly equivalent to announcing for all future generations of a program that anything anyone calls a duck is going to have duckwalk, duckquack, ducktastesgoodincassoulet as properties. Or is it more than that. Is there any working that backward in a program. Let’s say some programmer in the future, working with your program creates a variable, goose, that also waddles, quacks (sort of) and tastesgoodincassoulets. Is there any way for the program to output to the programmer, “don’t you mean ‘duck?”.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 12:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abducktion

On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

This also is very interesting. Peirce typing, as you put it, equals “abduction”. Is “Duck Typing” a term of art, somewhere? Or is that your neologism. I like it.

Actually, from Peirce’s point of view, I perhaps made a mistake with

“It's a duck!” (Some might say I was guilty of a canard. Heh. Heh.)

I should have written, “It’s more probably a duck.” The point is, channeling my mentor again, that “abducktion (=duck-typing, as you put it) is a probabilistic enterprise. As we accumulate concordant properties between the white feathered thing in front of us and what we know about ducks, the creature seems more probably to be a duck. No poke is ever the last poke. Each poke leads to future pokes. After “Poke-squawk” works, we might try to see if the creature goes well in a cassoulet, and if the result of that experiment is also, “yes”, then the creature is even more probably a duck.

But I really need to learn more about “duck-typing”.

Nick

There are endless (and pointless) arguments made as to how "strongly typed" a language is but basically its compile vs run time discovery of errors.

From the font of all knowledge, wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing

In computer programming with object-oriented programming languages, duck typing is a style of dynamic typing in which an object's methods and propertiesdetermine the valid semantics, rather than its inheritance from a particular class or implementation of a specific interface. The name of the concept refers to theduck test, attributed to James Whitcomb Riley (see history below), which may be phrased as follows:
When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.^[1]
In duck typing, one is concerned with just those aspects of an object that are used, rather than with the type of the object itself. For example, in a non-duck-typed language, one can create a function that takes an object of type Duck and calls that object's walk and quack methods. In a duck-typed language, the equivalent function would take an object of any type and call that object's walk and quack methods. If the object does not have the methods that are called then the function signals a run-time error. If the object does have the methods, then they are executed no matter the type of the object, evoking the quotation and hence the name of this form of typing.
Duck typing is aided by habitually not testing for the type of arguments in method and function bodies, relying on documentation, clear code and testing to ensure correct use.

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: Abducktion

On 4/22/13 8:52 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Let’s say some programmer in the future, working with your program creates a variable, goose, that also waddles, quacks (sort of) and tastesgoodincassoulets. Is there any way for the program to output to the programmer, “don’t you mean ‘duck?”.

They should use Haskell, so that they can benefit from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindley–Milner

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Russ Abbott

Re: Abducktion

Right. Type inferencing is a wonderful and powerful feature of some systems. Scala-user has it also.

On Apr 23, 2013 5:59 AM, "Marcus G. Daniels" <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 4/22/13 8:52 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Let’s say some programmer in the future, working with your program creates a variable, goose, that also waddles, quacks (sort of) and tastesgoodincassoulets. Is there any way for the program to output to the programmer, “don’t you mean ‘duck?”.

They should use Haskell, so that they can benefit from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindley–Milner

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

jon zingale

Re: Abducktion

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

Ha! It's good to see that 7 years later the advice is effectively the same,
"Hey Nick! listen to what the Haskell crowd has to say about your
problem!!!"

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: Abducktion

Hi, Jon,

Forgive me, but can you spell that out a bit? How does working in a
particular programming Language shape an approach to the problem.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 6:35 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abducktion

Ha! It's good to see that 7 years later the advice is effectively the same,
"Hey Nick! listen to what the Haskell crowd has to say about your
problem!!!"

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: Abducktion

“When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 9:54 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Jon,

Forgive me, but can you spell that out a bit? How does working in a

particular programming Language shape an approach to the problem.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale

Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 6:35 PM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abducktion

Ha! It's good to see that 7 years later the advice is effectively the same,

"Hey Nick! listen to what the Haskell crowd has to say about your

problem!!!"

--

Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: Abducktion

Gary,

Nah. He means more than that. Even ordinary languages predispose users to one kind of discourse or another. I assume that programming languages do the same.

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Gary Schiltz
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abducktion

“When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 9:54 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Jon,

Forgive me, but can you spell that out a bit? How does working in a

particular programming Language shape an approach to the problem.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale

Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 6:35 PM

To: [hidden email]

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abducktion

Ha! It's good to see that 7 years later the advice is effectively the same,

"Hey Nick! listen to what the Haskell crowd has to say about your

problem!!!"

--

Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe

http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam

un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: Abducktion

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Nick,

When not much is happening on the list, I like to go
spelunking through the archives and engage the
serendipity of the stacks. What amazes me most
is how often the same ideas, conversations, and
approaches have materialized since 2003. With
so much content here, I wonder to what extent
a bot could be written to select the most promising
leads and responses from the past and apply them
to the present? I haven't found it yet, but I suspect
(perhaps in one of Marcus' posts) will be a satisfactory
answer to your present question.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: Abducktion

Maybe Friam itself could be my hammer?

Nick, if you would like to chat programming languages tomorrow on zoom I
would love to.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: Abducktion

I will be there from around ten, and somewhat subdued, I hope, having had my
ears boxed for talking about political action, and being totally buried by
the conversation between you and Glen and Steve, this week.

So, sure. I think the question of whether some program languages
"afford"different kinds of insights from others is the kind of discussion I
would like to hear the group discuss, so why not ask it of them?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:35 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Abducktion

Maybe Friam itself could be my hammer?

Nick, if you would like to chat programming languages tomorrow on zoom I
would love to.

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Barry MacKichan

Re: Abducktion

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Very much so. We hired a grad student a long time ago (he stayed with us until he retired). He wrote great Pascal programs. He wrote great Pascal programs in C++, and in JavaScript. The effect of your first programming language on style, idioms, and your feelings about recursion and encapsulation.

—Barry

On 6 Aug 2020, at 23:24, [hidden email] wrote:

Nah. He means more than that. Even ordinary languages predispose users to one kind of discourse or another. I assume that programming languages do the same.

N

Prof David West

Re: Abducktion

Long time ago, as part of my cognitive anthropology studies, i had a lot of data about relationships among natural languages and programming languages (e.g. Native Hindi speakers learned Prolog, Pascal and SQL much faster than native English speakers) and between/among programming languages (e.g. C programmers took much longer to learn Smalltalk than COBOL programmers — and relational database experts seldom gained even minimal proficiency in Smalltalk).

There is also a lot of data that correlates problem solving / design conceptualization with 'expressiveness' of a programming language — e.g. C programmers cannot write business application programs; too much translation between domain concepts and C grammatical constructs. Functional programmers are equally inept.

The biggest single reason that OO never worked, is that programming profeciency/expertise in Java and C++ preclude your ability to think and design in objects.

davew

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Barry MacKichan wrote:

Very much so. We hired a grad student a long time ago (he stayed with us until he retired). He wrote great Pascal programs. He wrote great Pascal programs in C++, and in JavaScript. The effect of your first programming language on style, idioms, and your feelings about recursion and encapsulation.
—Barry
On 6 Aug 2020, at 23:24, [hidden email] wrote:
Nah. He means more than that. Even ordinary languages predispose users to one kind of discourse or another. I assume that programming languages do the same.

N
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Merle Lefkoff-2

Re: Abducktion

I'm in Seattle hugging my 10th grader and worried about inept educational programs as the new school year begins. Very little creative thinking on the part of public school bureaucracies. Lucky for Seattle students, the citizen-elected school board is resisting the "expert" educators.

https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/with-one-week-to-decide-fall-remote-learning-plans-seattle-school-board-members-criticize-district-proposal-and-push-for-outdoor-option/

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 8:26 AM Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

Long time ago, as part of my cognitive anthropology studies, i had a lot of data about relationships among natural languages and programming languages (e.g. Native Hindi speakers learned Prolog, Pascal and SQL much faster than native English speakers) and between/among programming languages (e.g. C programmers took much longer to learn Smalltalk than COBOL programmers — and relational database experts seldom gained even minimal proficiency in Smalltalk).

There is also a lot of data that correlates problem solving / design conceptualization with 'expressiveness' of a programming language — e.g. C programmers cannot write business application programs; too much translation between domain concepts and C grammatical constructs. Functional programmers are equally inept.

The biggest single reason that OO never worked, is that programming profeciency/expertise in Java and C++ preclude your ability to think and design in objects.

davew

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Barry MacKichan wrote:
Very much so. We hired a grad student a long time ago (he stayed with us until he retired). He wrote great Pascal programs. He wrote great Pascal programs in C++, and in JavaScript. The effect of your first programming language on style, idioms, and your feelings about recursion and encapsulation.
—Barry
On 6 Aug 2020, at 23:24, [hidden email] wrote:
Nah. He means more than that. Even ordinary languages predispose users to one kind of discourse or another. I assume that programming languages do the same.

N
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
Center for Emergent Diplomacy
emergentdiplomacy.org

Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merle.lelfkoff2

twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Abducktion

In reply to this post by Barry MacKichan

In Spanish if you drop your cup you say, "See me cayó la taza". A literal word--for-word translation is "The cup fell itself on me". Some people say this is an effort to avoid responsibility.

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020, 9:01 AM Barry MacKichan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Very much so. We hired a grad student a long time ago (he stayed with us until he retired). He wrote great Pascal programs. He wrote great Pascal programs in C++, and in JavaScript. The effect of your first programming language on style, idioms, and your feelings about recursion and encapsulation.

—Barry

On 6 Aug 2020, at 23:24, [hidden email] wrote:

Nah. He means more than that. Even ordinary languages predispose users to one kind of discourse or another. I assume that programming languages do the same.

N

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Tom Johnson

Re: Abducktion

Or the equally famous Spanish phrase, "The pencil broke itself." A phrase which you think I would remember.

============================================
Tom Johnson - [hidden email]
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
NM Foundation for Open Government
Check out It's The People's Data

============================================

Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 12:55 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

In Spanish if you drop your cup you say, "See me cayó la taza". A literal word--for-word translation is "The cup fell itself on me". Some people say this is an effort to avoid responsibility.

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020, 9:01 AM Barry MacKichan <[hidden email]> wrote:

Very much so. We hired a grad student a long time ago (he stayed with us until he retired). He wrote great Pascal programs. He wrote great Pascal programs in C++, and in JavaScript. The effect of your first programming language on style, idioms, and your feelings about recursion and encapsulation.

—Barry

On 6 Aug 2020, at 23:24, [hidden email] wrote:

Nah. He means more than that. Even ordinary languages predispose users to one kind of discourse or another. I assume that programming languages do the same.

N

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

123