I respectfully disagree with your disagreement of that disagreement of that disagreement.
>Abstractions have far more roles than reducing cognitive load. You're completely overlooking platform realities, code reuse, usability and other benefits of reduced/managed complexity.
I am not overlooking anything. The traits you bring up in this statement do offer any performance improvements to the system. Therefore the only other possible benefits that these traits offer is that they reduce cognitive overhead.
>From a technical standpoint efficiency of the code is irrelevant if it's bug-ridden due to it's complexity. Code is for humans, not the other way around. We chisel away at lower-level languages if efficiency is required (Ex. C bindings in Python).
Yes. And intelligent people can write more complex code with less abstractions and have less bugs... We agree.
>What I think you're critiquing is the act of adding abstractions when there's no need for one at a given time, just to make something simpler in name of simplicity overlooking it's usability. This can be attributed to the lack of experience.
I am not critiquing anything. I have not said anything about my opinion on where or when to add abstractions. I have only commented on how a very intelligent person would do it. I never said I was intelligent... All I said was more intelligent people tend to write less readable code and this can be attributed to the fact that they have less need for abstractions. So no I am not critiquing about when or where to write abstractions.
>The "classical" IQ applies mostly to dumb pattern matching
IQ tests present questions with patterns that the test taker usually has not seen before. A test taker cannot "dumb pattern match" a pattern he has not seen. Therefore the IQ test cannot be testing for "dumb pattern matching." If the IQ test measures IQ and the IQ test is not measuring for "dumb pattern matching" then by concrete logic IQ must not apply to "dumb pattern matching." QED
IQ must apply to something more. A general intelligence.
>Abstractions have far more roles than reducing cognitive load. You're completely overlooking platform realities, code reuse, usability and other benefits of reduced/managed complexity.
I am not overlooking anything. The traits you bring up in this statement do offer any performance improvements to the system. Therefore the only other possible benefits that these traits offer is that they reduce cognitive overhead.
>From a technical standpoint efficiency of the code is irrelevant if it's bug-ridden due to it's complexity. Code is for humans, not the other way around. We chisel away at lower-level languages if efficiency is required (Ex. C bindings in Python).
Yes. And intelligent people can write more complex code with less abstractions and have less bugs... We agree.
>What I think you're critiquing is the act of adding abstractions when there's no need for one at a given time, just to make something simpler in name of simplicity overlooking it's usability. This can be attributed to the lack of experience.
I am not critiquing anything. I have not said anything about my opinion on where or when to add abstractions. I have only commented on how a very intelligent person would do it. I never said I was intelligent... All I said was more intelligent people tend to write less readable code and this can be attributed to the fact that they have less need for abstractions. So no I am not critiquing about when or where to write abstractions.
>The "classical" IQ applies mostly to dumb pattern matching
IQ tests present questions with patterns that the test taker usually has not seen before. A test taker cannot "dumb pattern match" a pattern he has not seen. Therefore the IQ test cannot be testing for "dumb pattern matching." If the IQ test measures IQ and the IQ test is not measuring for "dumb pattern matching" then by concrete logic IQ must not apply to "dumb pattern matching." QED
IQ must apply to something more. A general intelligence.