= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Mar. 23 - Mar. 31, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (181)
I have usually seen that quotation in the modified form: "only two hard things: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors". (It appears that this modification was introduced by someone called Leon Bambrick.)
I like the modified version because (1) it's funny and (2) off-by-one errors are indeed a common source of trouble (though, I think, in a rather different way from cache invalidation and naming things). I do wish Karlton had said "software development" rather than "computer science", though.
Why do you believe that the problem of naming doesn't fall into computer science? Because people in that field find the question to low status to work on?
Nothing to do with status (did I actually say something that suggested a status link?), and my claim isn't that computer science doesn't have a problem with naming things (everything has a problem with naming things) but that when Karlton said "computer science" he probably meant "software development".
[EDITED to remove a remark that was maybe unproductively cynical.]
The question isn't whether computer science has a problem with naming things but whether naming information structures is a computer science problem.
It's not a problem of algorithms but it's a problem of how to relate with information. Given how central names are to human reasoning and human intelligence, caring about names seems to be relevant for building artificial intelligence.