News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Deep C and C++ (2011) by pandaman on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @11:21AM (#6599251)
>I think the point was that mathematics relies on a small set of postulates from which you can derive everything else.

And I agree, this is one of the assertions my opponent has made. I did not go to refute it because, if not outright false, it's disingenuous.

>Another way to put it is, learning the postulates for langx doesn't provide enough value for many to be worth doing.

This is also true, same goes for everything else. I make money using C - I learn C's postulates. If somebody paid me to use topology - I'd learned topology postulates. What would be stupid if I were paid to use topology but said: "it's hard to learn and it makes no sense for me because I don't like mathematics and don't know any other math discipline so why would I all of sudden learn topology's postulate when I can copy formulas from the net and ask questions on manifoldoverflow.com?"

Re:Deep C and C++ (2011) by pessimizer on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @12:23PM (#6599689)
Trying to derive C from its postulates is like trying to derive 70s television from its postulates. Most of C is an accident of history.
Re:Deep C and C++ (2011) by pandaman on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @01:08PM (#6600069)
I am not sure what is your point now. Are you aware that most of the math is way older than C?