Hello everyone!
Recently I read an interesting article which explains the concept of structured concurrency, and how this can be seen as a similar improvement to concurrency as structured programming improves on unstructured goto. (Turns out structured concurrency itself is also nothing new, having been introduced in 1979 but it has only gotten somewhat more popular recently.)
I just had an interesting shower thought, which I want to share here to get some feedback on whether my reasoning is correct.
Cannot also side-effects be seen as isomorph to gotos? I mean in the sense that ad-hoc side-effects might happen at any time, whereas pure type systems restrict where effects (may) occur, and therefore allow you to use the same 'black box rule'; In this case: referential transparency.
Unless there are couter-examples, I think this might make a very strong case for pure (functional) programming, as we might point at the lessons we've learned from shying away from `goto' in the last 50 years, to convince people to try the same w.r.t. (side) effects in their programs.
It's rather interesting that many people were very much against the change from goto to structured programming because many of their current programming techniques would no longer work, and new techniques would need to be learned. The same argument is very often heard as rebuttal to (pure) functional programming.
Your input on this matter is greatly appreciated :-).
Last time i looked at the reddit i saw texture in Lesters house . I found intresting Notes from Lester Link1. The first note i noticed is an electrical circuit diagram. But i think is non-sens or something else. But the second note was a chemical formula as I first thought. After that i searched for a better Version. Link2.
Then i thought is a puzzle or an atomic plan or something. Yesterday i watch a video from Dibbes Gaming he talks about The Galieo Building and the Company Isomorph YotubeLink3
He talks about isomorphism is a higher form of math and a problem in the computer science. But the right Picture looks really like the isomorphism
I have read a lot but do not really get on a result. If you have ideas? or somebody who is better at math than me?
can i take any take any logical tautology like "A v ~A" and write "x is in" in front of it to get a set-theoretical truth? I always thought so, but what about "A->B v B->A" ? Since A implies B->A and ~A implies A->B, it is true under all circumstances, yet i can easily imagine two sets that are disjoint (but translatet into set theory this would mean that for two given sets one is always subset of the other) Still "(x is in A implies that x is in B) or (x is in B implies that x is in A)" should be true if i choose "x is in A" for A and "x is in B" for B. Where is my mistake?
Sorry for the stupid title, its not really what my question is about, but i cant think of a better one right now. Also im a little drunk.
