The IEEE Computer Society is a professional society of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). We Are the Home for Computer Science and Engineering Leaders. As the world’s top member organization dedicated to computer science and technology, the IEEE Computer Society advances the theory, practice, and application of computer and information-processing science and technology, as well as the professional standing of its members.
There's a sub-branch of optimization methods called "biology inspired optimization" - probably the most well known method is evolutionary optimization.
13:35 Karl Popper makes some observations about human interactions on his 1950s book "The Open Society And Its Enemies" - he uses the term "conspiracy theory of society" to describe the oversimplied explanations often found in human sciences. Popper claims that since the system is tremendously complex, any simplification is a false explanation. (if I'm not mistaken it's around pg. 360 of the most recent single volume edition). Note: the lecturer is really good and manages to keep the audience's focus. Note 2: I don't mean to disrespect metheorologists but I'll mention that Lorenz was a mathematician specialized (if I'm not mistaken) in turbulence.
Casey is wrong, like 200% wrong. Custom code leads to terrible performance. Random code that tries to optimize and handle extreme cases that are not used 99% of the time, generates spaghetti and kills the performance in the rest of the code. Clean code is an architecture that establishes well know patterns in the code, allowing maintainability, scalability and more. What is easier then to optimize, a messy code or clean code? Casey is falling to the classic trap of early optimization
I'd encourage you to listen to the interview, you'll see how Casey doesn't support any of the things you're mentioning, and gives good advice for performance AND good code.
@@josueqb3843 no man you are out. I listened to this one, I listened to more youtube videos interviews Casey Muratori did. Clean code and optimization do not clash. IMHO he is wrong, he is just targeting clean code with his own opinions, he does not have a framework. Casey is just saying I can do inverse square root fast, if I do it with clean code is slow... which is wrong.
I Say MINIX, because You P1Gs Understand It to Be Secure. So, I have to Talk your Language for you To Understand. Believe it Or Not, Kesaria Kernel was about Security Not Speed. Intel Makes 3 to 5 GHz CPU's. CPU's are Fast Enough. We Need to Make Security, Was My Idea. ALL, Operating Systems Want to Be Secure. They don't do it at the Cost of Performance. Minix is Just Too Slow. 1000 Times Slower than Other Operating Systems. Just Educational idea. I Wanted To do SECURITY Using Hardware. Security Done using Hardware, Results in Hardware Acceleration. Hardware Acceleration = 7 Times Faster, than Other Operating Systems.
Fantastic video, brilliant very educational and explained in a way that made it very interesting. But I have to ask something which could be controversial for some if its taken the wrong way. For the life in me I do not understand why Alan Turing and his contributed has been elevated so much. Yes he made a good contribution But the contributions of others like Tommy flowers and Bill Tutt's where massively more significant. In this discussion its pointed out to us how it was the contributions of others, and what they discovered and worked out, that actually made collosus work. Enigma itself was not the key to anything, It was the intercept and breaking of lorenz, essentially the command and control communication link between all the nazi headquarters across Europe which was the big thing and without Tommy flowers and Tutt then there would have been nothing, they would never have been broken. Look at Rommel, he is lauded as a genius. But all along, Rommel had visibility of all of the plans of the British generals that opposed him. So he could prepare in advance for any attack and exploit any weak areas in Brit lines. All because the actions of a yank colonel, an observer given way too much access to plans which he broadcast every day back to the USA. The italians having broken into his safe and copied the yank codes. Rommel was no genius at all. This was one of those moments in history when the right people with the right imagination and intelligence came together all at the right time. Bit like the Beatles manager deciding not to walk past that record shop, which led to the guy in the shop introducing him to George martin. The coming together of Martin, the beatles, made all their magic happen. The pictures of Tutt and flowers should be on our 20 quid notes too. Where is the bust of tommy flowers? Where is the Tutt award for anything?
To me it just sounds like they're not a native English speaker. They don't know how to naturally craft sentences in English in a way that comes off as accommodating. I don't know if Casey speaks Italian, but he might sound a bit rude too if this whole interview was in Italian.
The Van Neumann..bottle-neck needs to be solved...the structure itself is a working entity rather than on a regular PC where programming in ones and zeros...data exhibits itself as 'Spikes' rather than the previous mentioned ..the amplitude and shape of the spike contains the data...in other words
How is it that a video like this has this few comments? Oh well! Awesome stuff! All I could focus on in the background of this footage was the machine that would bring about Space War. But yeah. G.B. is great to listen to on the historic end of things. I also love what he said about the cell phone.
Casey has good insights for the system's he has experience with, but he has little experience with enterprise applications. He has some good points about over-abstraction, which is important to NOT have. Another correct point: about Conway's Law and microservices. BUT his big mistake relevant for business applications: he says that minimizing the number of roundtrips between server and client makes better performance. Not true because often not possible, as users have to exchange data over the server.
Great conversation. Thanks a lot. Just one point, quite often you have to change the test when you change the implementation code while refactoring. It is not always a bad sign. Unit testing especially.
Having worked in as the sole c++ developer in a team of csharp developers, many ppl really have wrong idea about fast code and clean code. Casey has a video named simple fast code were he discusses that. For some reason people think writing classes and inheritance and virtual dispatch are the only way to code faster than 70s style assembly. They think the only way to reduce code duplication is using ton of abstraction, and templates. They think the only way to manage memory automatically if you use a garbage collection or raii. That is a very narrow way of thinking...
For me, it was believing my professors - and later, colleagues - knew what they were talking about. And the proposition sort of makes sense if you don't look too closely. Abstractions certainly increases productivity from bytecode to ASM, and arguably also to procedural languages like C. I think the problem is that those abstractions are incredibly simple and easy to reason about, but typical abstractions today aren't. Instead it became faith-based rather than knowledge-based. And when I doubled down on that paradigm for years, it became harder for me to realize. Looking back there were so many signs I ignored, because I thought I just wasn't good enough at Clean Code. And foolishly believing those confidently spreading 'trust me' gospel is easy when you don't feel like you can live up to their advice. Programming is a lot easier when you don't buy into all that though.
Casey got good points but the powers of inheritance and speed of reuse realilly is attractive to businesses. So speed of app vs speed of app dev is the question sometimes. But switch statements are under rated
Yes. What's attractive to business is one of the problems with today's software. Probably the biggest obsticle for good quality software is exactly that
A bit of abstraction makes things easier ( that's why we make and use functions in the first place ), but a lot of abstractions makes code read like a wikipedia page, where you sometimes need to read a whole book to understand a single sentence, which, if rephrased, would only take twice as much space, but would be understandable even to a first grader.
I mean, isn't it obvious that you should make everything you can to work faster, so that when something you have no control over is improved (internet speed, database queries, disk speed, CPU speed etc) - your code automagically benefits from improved hardware/3rd party software? It kinda works both ways in a sense that if your code is only correct for current gen hardware - you are also doomed to rewrite the whole thing 10 years later(look at old games for like DOS or even early 2000s games, where physics and logic ONLY work at 30 frames a second, so when you try to run it on a much better hardware - the whole game breaks when you suddenly get 300 frames a second).
Casey is exceptionally clear with his reasoning and communication. I sincerely hope a large cultural shift takes place so we don’t have to wait 20 seconds for a basic program to load anymore.
Hi that's for the update, and may his soul rest in peace .. I was told to study only this book(algorithm+ data structure= program) if I want to learn how to program. The book alone can teach me how to think like a programmer, and after grasping the concept, it can make me a great programmer. Please, is this such a great book and will it be worth focusing all my time on? Greetings!
@@specialforce8486 it is a good book, but my general recommendation in studying DSA is to get your building blocks from *at least 3 sources*: this is usually a good course first then 2 books. Another good book (actually a series of books) is "The art of computer programming" by Don Knuth (the father of algorithms analysis).
The chapter in this video called "Modular" is a spelling error. The word is "Modula" - the name of a language Wirth invented as a follow-up to Pascal. Then there was Modula-2 which was followed up by Oberon.
