From d2c85f476d05cec7682012c3c4710fab4f46b38a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kumar Damani Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 18:40:33 -0500 Subject: build files updates --- public/post/programming-as-art/code.png | Bin 0 -> 530926 bytes public/post/programming-as-art/index.html | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++----- public/post/programming-as-art/math.png | Bin 0 -> 398307 bytes public/post/programming-as-art/teaching.png | Bin 0 -> 410632 bytes public/post/programming-as-art/wand.png | Bin 0 -> 356173 bytes 5 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) create mode 100644 public/post/programming-as-art/code.png create mode 100644 public/post/programming-as-art/math.png create mode 100644 public/post/programming-as-art/teaching.png create mode 100644 public/post/programming-as-art/wand.png (limited to 'public/post/programming-as-art') diff --git a/public/post/programming-as-art/code.png b/public/post/programming-as-art/code.png new file mode 100644 index 0000000..30c3522 Binary files /dev/null and b/public/post/programming-as-art/code.png differ diff --git a/public/post/programming-as-art/index.html b/public/post/programming-as-art/index.html index 691abf4..5505e50 100644 --- a/public/post/programming-as-art/index.html +++ b/public/post/programming-as-art/index.html @@ -5,7 +5,22 @@ - + + + + + + @@ -15,8 +30,7 @@ - - + @@ -29,7 +43,7 @@ @@ -41,18 +55,61 @@

Romanticism in Programming

-

Why programming I see programming as an art form.

-

It started off in my first year as a CS student during a lecture about loops. -It was mind-bending to see “Hello World!” getting printed out to the console N-thousands of times -in just 3 functional lines of code.

-

But there was more. The TA then asks us to put our newly found power to use by producing the -sum of 1 to 100. Ofcourse, it was a natural application of our topic. We simply set the limit, -and do an increment a sum in the loop’s body.

-

Sure enough we saw the answer 5050 in the console. -But then the TA reminds us that we are making that computer work too hard. -It needs to do 100 basic ADD instructions in order to make this happen. -What if it was a million? -Is there a better way?

+

Why there is art in programming.

+

During my early days as a CS student, one of the first mind-blowing moments was +watching Hello World! getting printed out to the console thousands of times +in just two functional lines of code.

+
for _ in range(1, 1001):
+  print("Hello World!")
+

At the time it felt like having the Elder Wand. +Dumbledore with Elder Wand pic

+

But there was more to our lesson. +The TA then asks us to put our newly found power to use by computing the +sum of 1 to 100. Of course, it was a natural application of what we had just done earlier:

+
sum = 0
+for i in range(1, 100+1):
+  sum = sum + i
+

Sure enough we saw the answer 5050 in the console. +But then the TA reminds us that we are making our computers work too hard. +In other words, the computer needs to do one-hundred ADD instructions in order to make this computation happen.

+

What if it the number was a million? How well would our method scale?

+

Well then it would take a million ADD instructions. +We call this scaling linearly with the input size. +Later we would formalize this to $\mathcal{O}(n)$ (pronounced: Big Oh of N).

+

The TA hinted that there is a better way, and that we already know of the better way in math.

+

Teaching meme

+

$\displaystyle S_n = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n i = 1 + 2 + … + n = \frac{n (n + 1)}{2}$

+

With this we are no longer using loops, but a known mathematical fact about sequences. +If you don’t belive me, see the proof.

+

Written as code:

+
sum = n (n + 1) / 2
+

This one-liner solves our problem with just 3 (ADD, MULTIPLY, DIVIDE) instructions. +Crucially, it does not depend on the size of the input like our previous solution, thus +no matter the input, it always takes 3 instructions to compute! +This is a HUGE win!

+

Math meme

+

Later we would formalize this to $\mathcal{O}(1)$, or constant scaling.

+
+

Yes, yes I know IRL the complier would optimize the loop solution +such that it does not take N instructions but for the purposes of +learning we were not allowed to depend on that.

+
+

Looking back at it now, +both solutions are equally correct, and modern compilers would optimize the first solution +in the final instructions sent to the cpu, such that any performance differences would be negligible. +In other words, the computer wouldn’t acutally be working so hard.

+

Objectively, the first solution is more readable, and friendly to a new observer than the second.

+

Why then am I still so drawn to the second solution?

+

The first solution reminds me of the saying “to a hammer, eveything looks like a nail”. +Its a brute force approach. +In comparison, the second solution is using the exact tool for our particular problem. +It somehow feels personalized and dare I say romantic.

+

When I reflect on moments like this, it reminds me that there is emergent elegance and beauty +even in the seemingly arbitrary sequence of symbols that is code. +The Matrix code going by image

+

Programming is not quite as objective as people would have you believe. +There are trade-offs to each solution, and which solution you prefer relect on the trade-offs +you are willing to accept, which varies by the observer: much like art.

@@ -85,7 +142,7 @@ Is there a better way?

-

Why I see programming as an art form.

+

How programming is romantic.

By Kumar Damani, @@ -96,7 +153,20 @@ Is there a better way?

-