Sunday, January 20, 2008

Greenspun's 10 Laws

Well.... my latest posts have been angry and serious. Maybe time for a change of pace. One of my little pet peeves is that Greenspun only had a 10th law and never did the other 9. So time to create a fake set of the 10 laws. I not even sure who among my readers is going to get the joke but its not a rant so enjoy:

Oh and please feel free to add any good ones to help co-create this.

Law 10 (Greenspun's 10th law): Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.

Law 9 (Norvig's variant): Any sufficiently complicated Common Lisp program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of Prolog.

Law 8 (Haskell version): Any sufficiently advanced type system includes an incomplete and twisted subset of Scheme

Law 7 (Strong's version of the 10th): Any sufficiently complex data will be organized to contain a functional programming language

Law 6 (Ozen's refutation): Anyone who teaches and practices in a field still in its infancy has an informally specified, ad-hoc and bug-ridden collection of rules that often amuse but rarely enlighten.

Law 5 (Bone's Law): To fully understand any programming language, you must first implement a Lisp in it

Law 4 (Python Law): Most successful programming languages were invented by a brilliant programmer, Lisp is built into of the structure of the Universe.

Law 3 (Clarke's 3rd law): Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Law 2 (Law of variables): On a long enough time scale, all variables are temporary

Law 1 (Zawinski's Expansion Law): Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.


Anonymous said...

Well, I definitely understood the label on this post! That's the problem with having a highly focused blog, isn't it? My suggestion: label it appropriately and draw some outsiders in who might have a clue about computer programming. :-)

Annie C said...

You know, my ongoing issue with just not being able to fully embrace Christianity, or any organized religion, always comes down to Clarke's Law and a husband who's a huge Stargate fan.

CD-Host said...

Jen --

I actually went back and forth on having a blog on things like parser theory, generic programming.... It made more sense when I was doing AI rather than now. But since I had a humor post saved up, figured now was a good time to post. My blog was getting too angry.

CD-Host said...

Annie --

So you are another Christianity obsessed atheist! I liked your posts on the CDD/DD thread but now... Well welcome to the blog!

Well since I never have a sister in arms, any requests?

Annie C said...

I wouldn't go that far CD-Host. I'm a straight Theist, I believe there is a deity out there, somewhere, and it does interact with the universe.

That being said, I can't help but look at all the various holy books, including the Bible and think "Yes. but how do you *know* this one isn't just a man-made myth?" That's where Clarke's law kicks in for me.

As for practice, I consider myself a Catholic, as that is the religion in which I was raised, and those are the rituals in which I take the most comfort. My husband and I are members of the local Catholic parrish and attend mass there, because we agree with some of their political stands, and all of their local volunteer activities in the community. And because all of our collective parents are Catholic, so it sort of is a family activity. And because it's affiliated with my husband's workplace, so it's part of our community grouping as well. And because out of all the different churches, their theology makes the most sense with the fewest exceptions for us.

Yes, Fr. Mike and I have some whing-doozy debates from time to time. And no, I don't take communion.

You're right about finding it all quite fascinating though. I'm still trying to figure out how reading a myth over and over again can solve so many problems for a homekeeper, especially motivation. Can someone explain that to me, please?

Anonymous said...

After a quick review of definitions in Wikipedia, I suppose you could call me an agnostic theist, practicing in the Catholic faith because if any religion could be right, I believe that's the closest.

Annie C said...

And that last anon post was me. I need more coffee.

CD-Host said...

Annie --

Well if you were asking non rhetorically why myths give motivation then I'd say Jung is the king. The unconscious consists of archetypes and one of the easiest ways for the conscious mind to cross the gap is through myth. In other words you are using church to help reprogram yourself.

On the other hand if you were being rhetorical.... I can completely relate. I find the Catholic Mass to be wonderfully beautiful and when I've done it I get swept up in this world of beauty and myth and emotion. When I was on my way out of Christianity I kept going to mass faithfully until I absolutely had to stop because I no longer even believed in God. If I wouldn't feel like such a hypocritical idiot praying to a God that I no longer believe exists I'd probably still be going. For me, mass is the soul what a shower is the body on a summer evening.

It must be tough denying yourself communion while still attending. I respect your integrity for that. Anyway not too much here on Catholic topics. You may want to check out the links in the DeFide thread, and read the discussion on Federal Vision (that one is very Catholic). Also I've been thinking about covering the whole SPPX and SPPV issue, any interest?

Annie C said...

No I wasn't being rhetorical, I never thought of looking at it from the Jungian aspect. I'd definitely suggest that as a topic for future discussion, as well as the whole SPPX and SPPV issue.

Not that I have any idea what the SPPX and SPPV issue is, but why not.

CD-Host said...

SSPX / SSPV is an interesting excommunication because its similar to what happened among American Protestants in the 1920s. Its the moderates excommunicating the hard right on issues of disobedience and heresy while at the same time the hard right is growing ever more schismatic and separatist. I.E. we may be witnessing the birth of catholic fundamentalist as a denomination.

As for the Jung stuff that's not really a discipline issue. I'm having a tough time thinking through where the right place for that. Any ideas?

Annie C said...

Catholic Fundamentalist, now there is a concept to keep me up nights.

On the one hand, I can see it having a place because I would think that having a differing interpretation of these myths would lead one to question one's elders and then to discipline. It might also then show that these are "myths" and then where do you go? Or if you just don't want to have the discussion in this blog space we could use mine, right now it's just keeping track of this year's craft projects anyway.