[tpm] UNS: Re: Complexity and language
abram.hindle at softwareprocess.es
Thu Jun 7 14:03:02 PDT 2012
On 12-06-07 10:54 PM, arocker at Vex.Net wrote:
>> But seriously, I'm talking about more than 'field validation' but
>> algorithmic equivalence (or non-equivalence... where a+b != b+a)
>> [Or would that be 'temporal significance'?]
> That's more domain-specific. Once you've got sensible input, (for whatever
> is your definition of "sensible"), do they map to the output you want?
> In your example, the possible sets would presumably be " " (nothing
> happens), "a ", " a", "b ", " b", "ab", "ba", and perhaps multiple
> occurrences of one event boiling down to a single event, (e.g. "bbba" =
> "ba"). Then the problem becomes writing a test generator that is less
> complex than the thing it's testing. (That way lies recursion.) Jigs
> should not cost more than the product, unless they're going to get
> I think we're wandering off-topic a bit here; I was trying to determine
> what sort of problems demand more complex structures and processes than
> simple lists and basic logic and arithmetic operations, and how to order
> the increasing demands.
I've got my own nuanced opinion about language complexity ;-)
The result: natural language to be more complex than programming
But that's not really a great answer to the ideas of complexity
expressed in this thread.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the toronto-pm