From: Chad Perrin <perrin@...>
Date: 2007-03-23T14:43:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Object/Relational Mapping is the Vietnam of Computer Sci

On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 10:20:50AM +0900, Pe�a, Botp wrote:
> From: Chad Perrin [mailto:perrin@apotheon.com] 
> # On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 08:10:59PM +0900, Pe�a, Botp wrote:
> # > data is _just_ data until one makes *use of it. So until 
> # someone makes use of it, it is still useless..  Isn't it the 
> # reason why there are rubyists all around? Is the ruby 
> # language data? ;)
> # > 
> # 
> # Of course Ruby is just data.  That's true of every 
> # programming language.
> 
> if language is data, then from whence did it came from? 

Language is an abstracted, reformulated (or refactored) form of
preexisting data.  The only argument for the spontaneous generation of
data from processes that really strikes me as particularly believable is
based on the idea of human creativity.

On the other hand, the Taoist in me wants to say that these divisions
between process and data are illusory, and both are one and the same.
Still, when programming it's generally far more useful to program to the
data, rather than imagine that you're using data to support the program.


> 
> 1 found, thru the process of searching or
> 2 created, or
> 3 copied, or
> (4 a combi of the 3 above)
> 
> all those 3 are processes. they require intelligence. data is useless without them.

Data exists.  One finds uses for it -- thus, it becomes useful.  The
means by which you put it to use is the process.  The point of the
process is to make use of data.  At least, from a limited empirical
perspective, that's surely how it looks to me.


> 
> Can processing create it's own pristine data?

Processing needs something to process.  You don't get output without
input -- even if that input is built into the code (hard-coded data,
like the string "Goodbye, crule[sic] world!" in a particularly maudlin
Hello World program).  There's no such thing as immaculate conception in
programming.


> 
> # Lisp isn't special in this regard -- it's special, in that it doesn't
> # try to pretend there's a difference between source code and data,
> # whereas (most) other languages do.
> 
> (thanks. lisp is very cool indeed, too.)

One of these days I'll even get around to learning a dialect of Lisp
that doesn't get me patted on the head and condescended to.


> 
> btw, one last question: let's take the google example, if you're to decide of the fate of google and were given only one choice which would you prefer, 
> 1 the total lost of data, and start from gathering again
> 2 the total lost of code and coders, and restart hiring and coding again
> ?

I'll answer that question in part by reformulating it:

Pick what you'd keep, if you could only keep one . . .

1. data
2. code
3. programmers

I'd choose the programmers who made it all happen in the first place.
The data isn't really lost -- it's just no longer collected in neat
little piles.  The code can be recreated, and maybe this time it'll be
even better because we'll have learned from our experience the first
time around.  Talent is invaluable, however.  With talent, we can
recreate code to collect the data and transform it into information.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid