By the original definition, they can share bits that are set to zero and still be orthogonal. Think of the bits as basis vectors – if they have none in common, they are orthogonal.
Better still, lots of mini-switchovers. I rolled out a bank’s p&l system for bonds that way. Trading book by trading book, those with simpler instruments first, more complex ones later. We finished ahead of schedule!
I know from firsthand experience that there were investment banks doing this at least as early as the mid 1990s - on top of Sybase in the particular case I have in mind. Perhaps not the best performance, but it was trivially easy to inspect, and you could integrate with other database features, for example stored procedures.
I’m writing one now as part of a hobby language project, about which I’ll do a Show HN once I have enough to share. I enjoyed Pierce but to your point I am going mostly down the functional route. Programming it in Python, with the book closed but after two readings I have what I need in my head (it clicked much better second time through).
Edit: This project (best fun I’ve had programming in a long while) is what got me sharing Eli Bendersky’s Unification post a couple of weeks back https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44938156
Agreed. About the strongest we can hope for are causal mechanisms, and most of those will be at most hypotheses and/or partial explanations that only apply under certain conditions.
Honestly, I don’t know understand how these so-ontologies have persisted. Who is investing in this space, and why?
About the domain name, I don’t thought that too. But its stated intention is “to accelerate the development of prospective mathematical scientists”, hence the lean to physics and to certain authors.
That’s kinda what brought unification to my attention. For my own education I’m writing a compiler for a simple ML-style language. Enjoying Pierce’s Types and Programming Languages meanwhile.
I’ve looked at it rather than used it, but what it brings is ML-style polymorphism. Type safety is a given in that case, which may or may not be the case with CL (I’ll let others argue that one).
> It seems that the designers of Lisp 1.5 thought of function names as being different from variable names--the Lisp 1.5 interpreter looked at the property list of the named atomic symbol first, and so it can be argued that a function was considered a property of a symbol. The designers used the terminology that a symbol "stands for" a function while a variable "refers" to a value.
Why that line in particular? It seems not to be about the quality of the content. Part of the issue is that businesses were advised to produce useful content, but the motivation for doing so is disappearing. A net negative, surely?
> These are really concepts needed to make up for the limitations of a pure functional layer of abstraction in an imperative world.
Yet they have been found to be much more widely useful. Closures as callbacks, generators as the basis for coroutines, and monads for error handling, not to mention things like C#’s Linq.
Programming languages in practice borrow heavily from functional programming. Polymorphic types, closures, generators, immutability, various nomadic things etc all came from there.
Quoting Pierce’s book Types and Programming Languages (which I’m reading now): “Barendregt’s article (1992) is for the more mathematically inclined.” That’s in a book designed for a graduate course.
Even with cyclic relationships between types, immutability makes cycles within instances difficult (without laziness anyway). A syntax tree would be a good example.
> I find this particularly interesting because this isn't fundamentally a problem of the software being written in C. These are logic errors that are possible in nearly all languages, the common factor being this is a vulnerability in the interprocess communication of the components (either between git and external processes, or within the components of git itself).
I'm neither American nor of the political persuasion of its current government, but I'm not alone in seeing it odd that the outputs of research funded by my government and/or yours is paywalled so egregiously. I for one would be happy to see some disruption here.
Interesting! I’m working on toy/educational generator of ML-style tagged variants and associated functions in C (for a compiler) and when I’m a bit further along I will see if they’re compatible.
> Paracetamol is the Australian Approved Name and British Approved Name as well as the international nonproprietary name used by the WHO and in many other countries; acetaminophen is the United States Adopted Name and Japanese Accepted Name and also the name generally used in Canada, Venezuela, Colombia, and Iran. Both paracetamol and acetaminophen are contractions of chemical names for the compound.