Re:A Polynomial Time Bounded-Error Quantum Algorithm for Boo...
by anfedorov on Wednesday July 22, 2015 @09:19PM
(#9933411)
Not at all equivalent, because code isn't meant to be human readable, but computer interpretable. Because of these different goals, computer code is actually quite a bit harder to read than a well structured academic paper. I think programmers have a lot to learn about logical structure from writing meant to be read by humans [1].
Note how many people on this thread seem to be understanding and discussion its contents, whereas if I were to post 13 pages of "unfamiliar, complicated code" that claimed to do something, I can't imagine anyone would help me debug it.
1. Knuth expounds on this idea here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming
Re:A Polynomial Time Bounded-Error Quantum Algorithm for Boo...
by irljf on Friday July 24, 2015 @10:35AM
(#9942245)
I agree, but not all bugs are subtle. This seems to be the equivalent to someone having trouble with "hello world" because they forgot to include iostream.
Re:A Polynomial Time Bounded-Error Quantum Algorithm for Boo...
by ejk314 on Wednesday July 22, 2015 @02:58PM
(#9931591)
> complicated code base
So then the answer is certainly "yes" with the same level of certainty that algorias is claiming. Large, complicated solutions are inherently likely to have subtle flaws.
This is almost exactly equivalent to saying that an expert programmer should be able to determine whether an unfamiliar, complicated code base contains a bug by skimming the source. The hard bugs are going to be subtle.