Brian Pontarelli encounters the same ugliness in the Java API that I talked about back in Implementation Exposure Through Inheritance.

It’s a good read, and goes into more detail than I did about the most glaring and chafing example: Java’s “Properties” class, which is-a Hashtable so that the developer didn’t have to rework “Map”.

Popularity: 3% [?]

An interesting podcast, for those either within our without the PC(USA):
Decently and in Order.

Engaging and entertaining with deep and thoughtful analysis. It’s like the “Car Talk” of PC(USA) polity. Even those outside of the PC(USA) and outside of the church could have a lot to gain from the podcast — the issues and positions are reflective of wider conversations and personal struggles that we all are going through. And those from outside the church would have a lot to gain: it’s a good way to get a general sense of the struggles in the more liberal branches of the Christian church.

The very first episode gets into the PC(USA)’s position on the Israel/Palestine situation, and personal experiences (in an almost narrative theology style) from Israel/Palestine. It then careens into a review of a Christian theme park (”I just felt dirty…” and “…it’s just stupid…”). It ends with discussions of how some technical stuff has helped people: iMovie and GMail.

The second episode deals with the gay/lesbian issue in the PC(USA). It’s actually an extremely balanced conversation, more talking about the way the issue is addressed in the PC(USA) than the issue itself.

Popularity: 3% [?]

A ‘newbie’, in Haskell, is someone who hasn’t yet implemented a compiler. They’ve only written a monad tutorial.

-Pseudonymn

With that quote in mind, I’ve decided to become a Haskell newbie and write myself a monad tutorial. This has a value, no matter how bad the monad tutorial might be- it’s as much about explaining the concept to the author as it is explaining it to anyone else. It’s also a test to show how well you really understand the concept. So, as usual, this should not be considered the final word on this subject (as if), but instead the first cut. Because I think I’ve gotten a handle on monads. So it’s time to step up an embrace the newbie experience.

Forget category theory. Forget space suits and free will and all the other bad analogies floating around about Monads. Monads are first and foremost a design pattern, as in the Gang of Four “Design Patterns” book.

Specifically, it’s a design pattern for manipulating computations and enforcing certain semantic constraints. Hopefully, what I mean by this will become clear before the end of the post.

The design patterns in that book were first discovered and codified (in both meanings of that word) by Object Oriented programmers (mainly in the Smalltalk community), so to are various new design patterns being discovered and codified by the functional programming community. Among the design patterns being discovered by the functional community are the various lazy evaluation tricks, and monads. And, like the patterns describes in the GoF book, monads are a usefull pattern outside of the language they were originally discovered in.

Which is why I’m doing something different with this tutorial, and using Ocaml instead of Haskell as the language of choice. The advantage of this choice is that Ocaml makes certain issues more clear and up front which Haskell muddles (or, to put it a different way, Ocaml forces you to deal with some things that Haskell doesn’t). Hopefully, this second pespective will lend a depth to the explanation (sorry- couldn’t resist the pun).

Continue Reading »

Popularity: 34% [?]

This is one of the most amazing stories I’ve ever heard. Given my post-modern and intellectual approach to religion, it is easy for me to see God in academic terms: as though knowing God is dependent upon intellectual analysis, like He is one of the realities revealed within a mathematical proof. It’s an easy trap, which I’m consciously aware of yet subconsciously fall into time and time again.

I have just encountered a story which made me realize just how judgmental I was. While I am thankful for the experience, it is a shame that I was so struck by the beauty and spiritual sincerity of the people in Krista Tippet’s “Speaking of Faith” program on the L’Arche community. There is a beautiful faith and a wonderful face of God revealed there.

Popularity: 3% [?]

I’ve been looking a bit more into DailyKos, because I was surprised by some of the diaries resulting from the I-35W Bridge Collapse (see previous). I’ve continued to be surprised — and impressed — with the condemnations of the Democrats for their shameful showing with the FISA amendment.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/5/83958/82889

I know what a lot of you 57 Democratic Representatives and Senators are going to be saying over the next month while you’re speaking on the home turf. You did it to protect Americans. You didn’t want to take a chance. You had to stand up to the terrorists. You really had no choice.

If anybody asks why in hell you chose to legalize what the Cheney-Bush team has been doing illegally since 2001, you’re going to tell us you did it for our own good.

[...]

You’re going to tell us you couldn’t stand up to the blackmail, although that’s not what you’ll call it. You’re going to say Democrats can’t afford to appear weak.

At which point, if I happen to be in the back of the room, your bodyguards will probably have to drag me off. Because I cannot imagine how I will be able to quiet my laughter long enough for you to get on to the next question.

Frankly, you epitomize weak. Your every pore exudes feebleness. You are surrender monkeys. And you’ve just casually tossed away a basic protection as if it were a banana peel.

[...]

Unfortunately, you 57 are not the only Democrats at fault for enabling these unconstitutional abuses. Party leaders bear responsibility for not playing hardball. For not using every technique and every bit of clout at their command to at least attempt to block amendments like this atrocity from becoming law. You leaders don’t have to explain about the paper-thin majority. You don’t have point out that it’s important to choose your fights. Understood. But this isn’t about corn subsidies, or earmarks or resolutions establishing Soap Carvers of America Day. Constitutional protections are at stake. Most people won’t blame you for losing if you put up a good fight. But how can you expect to avoid blame when you don’t?

And it goes on.

Next time you hear a Democratic water-bearer say that the Democrats have to be elected, because only they will stand up to the Bush administration, remember these decisions. This was exactly the same kind of mess we saw with the Iraq funding — lots of bluster, and then capitulation. They are right in that Republicans will capitulate more quickly, and that means that we have two choices: capitulation quickly or capitulation slowly.

This was precisely the prediction that I laid out before the newest election — that electing the Democrats would result in a lot of bluster, but no actual action. Some people will say it’s because the Democrats are weak or afraid, but my belief is that it’s because the Democrats are an easy sell. It’s easy to sell them on empowering the federal government to take away our rights, because they already believe that the state can save us: by empowering the state, you are empowering our savior. This is the same mindset that drives calls for Democratic interventionism (”neo-liberalism”), nationalized health care, and the unification of power in the federal government.

If the Republicans won’t save us, and the Democrats won’t save us, we’re going to have to find some way to save ourselves. Unfortunately, I really don’t know what we have to do. I wish I did.

I suppose I can write my Congressional representatives again, and ask them why they’re weakening an already dubious civil protection, and putting more power into the hands of a scandal-ridden and corrupt executive.

Popularity: 3% [?]