Hacker News Reader

Comment by zasdffaa | Hacker News Reader

> but saying that a physical keyboard is a more "powerful" way to enter text seems reasonable to me

No. It's faster and that's all. So call it by that word which is very precise.

If you say 'power' = 'speed' then you've destroyed the meaning of one of those words, just for the modern habit of co-opting a fancier word for a simpler one. I'd prefer people didn't do that, and differentiated 'speed' from a thing you call power which indicates "I can't do that at all, at any speed".

If you don't like bullshit marketing and PR, don't follow it.

View on HN

If we go by the physics definition power is work over time, so the same work over a shorter time is by definition more powerful. I don't think applying that term to software is inherently wrong.

by the physics definition work is kilograms * meter^2 / sec^2 what computer users do on a computer is not work in the physics sense, maybe in the economic sense

I didn't say "power = speed", I said power is work over time, which is the actual definition and supports the rest of my post. You're the one redefining "power".

Again, I fully acknowledge this is nitpicky to the point of absurdity and we're arguing semantics. But if we're gonna argue semantics, then the definitional meaning of power is on my side.

Interesting, so do you avoid describing one programming language as being "more powerful" than another? They're all Turing complete, after all... it's just a question of how fast you can develop in one, right?

Good question, 'power' I reserve for turing completeness (some aren't, such as SQL before recursive CTEs were added, and... well, here's a list https://iq.opengenus.org/non-turing-complete-programming-lan...)

For "how much crap do I have to write to get it to do something", I call that expressivity. Scala is more expressive than fractran (I guess...).

Sounds like you are consistent with your usage of terms, and I understand the logic and the motivation.

I would just caution that it's fairly idiosyncratic - plenty of people out there don't use the word "power" the way you do. For example, here is how Paul Graham talks about the "power" of programming languages: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html

Just saying, as consistent as your definitions are internally, being too rigid about it may hinder your ability to communicate with others in the field. Good luck buddy <3

Thoughtful reply and it is much appreciated dude, take care!

What's the case for power equals Turing completeness over power equals speed of development?

> No. It's faster and that's all. So call it by that word which is very precise.

Definition of "power" is work done over some unit of time, so OP was using it precisely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com