The Great Coding Language Thread

[Strikingwolf]

Abstraction or simplification to the point of inapplicability is worthless.

True, but it is not worthless for theory or proving a point.

Case in point: Netwon's laws of gravitation are not perfect. Relativity gives a better model. However, it is within a tiny fraction of the data derived from Netwon's model except in extreme cases, and as a result NASA sent the Voyager probes to four planets, including repeated gravity assists, using only Newton's model. However, simplifying the system so that all the orbits are circular? Enjoy being in deep spaaaaaace 50 000 000 km from the nearest object.

The difference between my simplification and this is that yours is destructive. My simplification contains all the steps necessary to do the thing it was set out to do, acquire currency through the means of knowledge. I can write a piece of knowledge on paper and sell the knowledge to a person. This does not mean that the book was published officially, that I'm selling it in stores, or that I have copyrighted it, just that I have acquired currency through the means of knowledge. It does not matter what laws or things prevent me from doing so. Two people can exchange knowledge and currency. In your simplification the goal is to be on a planet in the correct position, since the circular abstraction is to abstract for your goal you fail, whereas the Newton abstraction is close enough that you can use it.

 

[HeilMewTwo]

True, but it is not worthless for theory or proving a point.

The difference between my simplification and this is that yours is destructive. My simplification contains all the steps necessary to do the thing it was set out to do. I can write a piece of knowledge on paper and sell the knowledge to a person. This does not mean that the book was published officially, that I'm selling it in stores, or that I have copyrighted it, just that I have acquired currency through the means of knowledge. In your simplification the goal is to be on a planet in the correct position, since the circular abstraction is to abstract for your goal you fail, whereas the Newton abstraction is close enough that you can use it.

Please just stop, you aren't proving anything with this.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Please just stop, you aren't proving anything with this.

I'm not because my point that knowledge and currency are trade-able is already established. I was just refuting @Reika's point because I thought I had a logical way of doing so

 

[SatanicSanta]

Perl, anyone? <3

 

[Strikingwolf]

Perl, anyone? <3

Share the camel love

 

[Pyure]

I'm not because my point that knowledge and currency are trade-able is already established. I was just refuting @Reika's point because I thought I had a logical way of doing so

The problem with your point was that your original argument was that money is irrelevant("has no place in a universal marketplace."), and yet you still need that intermediary to get what you want.

Work IS trading knowledge for cash, but that cash is still the critical B on the way from A to C.

 

[Strikingwolf]

The problem with your point was that your original argument was that money is irrelevant("has no place in a universal marketplace."), and yet you still need that intermediary to get what you want.

True, but fundamentally you are trading A for C and using B as an intermediary. Therefore if we are to be more efficient we would trade A for C without using B. The problem with this is someone not wanting A but wanting something of equal value. Thus we use B. In a universal marketplace there are so many types of money that money has the same problem as what you were originally trading. Therefore if we valued knowledge above all else we would have a perfect currency because

• You can obtain it yourself
• It does not have to be managed by a central bank
• It's value can be evaluated by looking at how well it represents what it is trying to represent
• More knowledge could be produced by individuals or companies through hard work.

This would lead to a society where research is the most valued thing, thus new technologies would be made constantly. Then, we could live in a world with even more luxuries then this one

The problem with the currency of knowledge is it requires people to value it above all else. Something which I already do, but I realize others do not.

 

[trajing]

True, but fundamentally you are trading A for C and using B as an intermediary. Therefore if we are to be more efficient we would trade A for C without using B. The problem with this is someone not wanting A but wanting something of equal value. Thus we use B. In a universal marketplace there are so many types of money that money has the same problem as what you were originally trading. Therefore if we valued knowledge above all else we would have a perfect currency because

• You can obtain it yourself
• It does not have to be managed by a central bank
• It's value can be evaluated by looking at how well it represents what it is trying to represent
• More knowledge could be produced by individuals or companies through hard work.

This would lead to a society where research is the most valued thing, thus new technologies would be made constantly. Then, we could live in a world with even more luxuries then this one

The problem with the currency of knowledge is it requires people to value it above all else. Something which I already do, but I realize others do not.

BRB, adding "Strikingwolfian Utopia" to the dictionary.

 

[Strikingwolf]

BRB, adding "Strikingwolfian Utopia" to the dictionary.

I fully support this venture :3

 

[Pyure]

True, but fundamentally you are trading A for C and using B as an intermediary. Therefore if we are to be more efficient we would trade A for C without using B.

This is called a barter system.

It is so terribly inefficient in society that "currency" is often considered a pillar of civilization.

I can't explain it better than wikipedia so here you go:

Limitations[edit]
Barter's limits are usually explained in terms of its inefficiencies in easing exchange in comparison to the functions of money:

• Need for presence of double coincidence of wants

For barter to occur between two people, both would need to have what the other wants.

• Absence of common measure of value

In a monetary economy, money plays the role of a measure of value of all goods, so their values can be measured against each other; this role may be absent in a barter economy.

• Indivisibility of certain goods

If a person wants to buy a certain amount of another's goods, but only has for payment one indivisible unit of another good which is worth more than what the person wants to obtain, a barter transaction cannot occur.

• Lack of standards for deferred payments

This is related to the absence of a common measure of value, although if the debt is denominated in units of the good that will eventually be used in payment, it is not a problem.

• Difficulty in storing wealth

If a society relies exclusively on perishable goods, storing wealth for the future may be impractical. However, some barter economies rely on durable goods like pigs or cattle for this purpose.[10]

 

[Strikingwolf]

This is called a barter system.

It is so terribly inefficient in society that "currency" is often considered a pillar of civilization.

I can't explain it better than wikipedia so here you go:

And I go on to explain the problems with it further on and why we have made a system like it with all the different currencies -_-

Context is important

Also, where could I find these mini-jobs?

 

[Pyure]

Also, where could I find these mini-jobs?

Specifically? Dunno. But you're obviously way ahead of your time in skill. If I were you I'd be hanging out on forums where people are actually discussing problems and projects and offer your skills there.

 

[1SDAN]

So I added the global function and I still got an error...

from Startup import Intro

global Skip
Skip = 0
Intro.titleSeq()

import thread
import time
       

def titleSeq():
    print Skip

    while Skip == 0:
        thread.start_new_thread(titleSkip, ())
        print "Test 1"
        time.sleep(2)
        print "Test 2"
        time.sleep(2)
        print "Test 3"
        time.sleep(2)
        print "Test 4"
        time.sleep(2)
        print "Test 5"
        break
       
    print("Skipped")
    return
   
def titleSkip():
    while Skip == 0:
        Skip = raw_input("Test")
    while Skip != 0:
        return

Python 2.7.9 (default, Dec 10 2014, 12:24:55) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "copyright", "credits" or "license()" for more information.
>>> ================================ RESTART ================================
>>> 

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Users\Jonathan\Desktop\Universe Sim Game\1SDAN'S Universe Sim Game.py", line 5, in <module>
    Intro.titleSeq()
  File "C:\Users\Jonathan\Desktop\Universe Sim Game\Startup\Intro.py", line 6, in titleSeq
    print Skip
NameError: global name 'Skip' is not defined
>>>

 

[Strikingwolf]

So I added the global function and I still got an error...

from Startup import Intro

global Skip
Skip = 0
Intro.titleSeq()

import thread
import time
      

def titleSeq():
    print Skip

    while Skip == 0:
        thread.start_new_thread(titleSkip, ())
        print "Test 1"
        time.sleep(2)
        print "Test 2"
        time.sleep(2)
        print "Test 3"
        time.sleep(2)
        print "Test 4"
        time.sleep(2)
        print "Test 5"
        break
      
    print("Skipped")
    return
  
def titleSkip():
    while Skip == 0:
        Skip = raw_input("Test")
    while Skip != 0:
        return

Python 2.7.9 (default, Dec 10 2014, 12:24:55) [MSC v.1500 32 bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "copyright", "credits" or "license()" for more information.
>>> ================================ RESTART ================================
>>>

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "C:\Users\Jonathan\Desktop\Universe Sim Game\1SDAN'S Universe Sim Game.py", line 5, in <module>
    Intro.titleSeq()
  File "C:\Users\Jonathan\Desktop\Universe Sim Game\Startup\Intro.py", line 6, in titleSeq
    print Skip
NameError: global name 'Skip' is not defined
>>>

You might want to do it as a public variable and reference it...I can't remember globals because I generally don't use them

 

[Strikingwolf]

Specifically? Dunno. But you're obviously way ahead of your time in skill. If I were you I'd be hanging out on forums where people are actually discussing problems and projects and offer your skills there.

Hmmmm, time to find some forums like that then. I need some better equipment :3

Depends on what you want to do. I guess you don't want more Java, hm? If you actually want to do Java, people are buying Bukkit plugins for ridicoulos amounts.

Hahahaha like I'd touch MC code for money. The only reason I would touch it is for the PT

 

[Padfoote]

Hahahaha like I'd touch MC code for money. The only reason I would touch it is for the PT

And even then we have to drag you kicking and screaming to it.

 

[1SDAN]

You might want to do it as a public variable and reference it...I can't remember globals because I generally don't use them

Public?

 

[Strikingwolf]

And even then we have to drag you kicking and screaming to it.

Exactly

Public?

Just a regular variable, then import the file

 

[1SDAN]

Exactly

Just a regular variable, then import the file

So, define the variable before the import?

 

[Strikingwolf]

So, define the variable before the import?

No like how you imported your functions from the other file. Just declare it as a regular variable.