tkzzbneig

Unity is very commonly despised in the Linux community. Some do like it, but to form your opinion of Linux DE usability based on that one experience isn't fair. Try Linux Mint for all the ease of Ubuntu in terms of setup and bundled software, but for the best DE out there.

Yes. I'm not sure why you seem to think I don't.

There are times when you need to do something conceptually like having a list of things of similar, but different kind. There are different ways to go about this. Briefly mentioned in my original post: object pointers; or breaking up the data according to DDD (just because something is conceptually one item, does not mean it cannot be spread into different data structures. after all, if you have an array full of things, there's likely one property in common between those things of different kind that is similar and germane to their being in the collection).

Okay, sure, if you want to get into the nitty gritty, that's fine. But I just wanted to provide a high level overview of how putting differently-sized structs into a vector can be problematic.

Sure, ignorance, whatever. Indeed. That's why I brought it up.

But my greater point still stands: do you want the compiler to catch these things? If so, you have trade-offs.

It's important to note that in C++ you can easily run into problems with what you're describing: structs (objects) with different sizes being put into a vector. You may very well get the program to compile, but then run into odd bugs which come about because your objects get clipped to the size of the smallest possible (the base class). So any overridden methods which expect extra data in a subclass will not behave as expected.

So what you usually do here is have a pointer and a VTable and all that jazz. But there's been a resurgence in interest in putting data into contiguous blocks of memory. Check up on data driven design.

I don't think it's fair to compare GC'd languages to Rust's complexity. At least, compare C to Rust. But still, to be truly fair, weigh the usability differences against the safety differences. There are a lot of trade-offs here and perhaps this isn't the right way for you to go forward, but keep a broad view of the other aspects at play.

Am I correct in understanding that it's not that intuition is invalid, but that it's insufficient for communicating a proof to another mathematician.

What I believe to be true is that a solid intuitive proof will be sound, but not necessarily transcribable until formalized. Formalization of the proof is essentially the matter of making a proof communicable.

Putting it one more way: purely-intuitive proofs would be just fine if one could share one's mental state with another.

What do you think?

Number theory's as good a place to start as any. You'll learn proof techniques and see a lot of notation in contexts that require varying amounts of background knowledge. It's feasible that an undergrad intro class would be up your alley if you're a software dev.

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-781-theory-of-num...