Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Okay, you're trying to explain the success of modules on CPAN; that is, why do certain modules become more popular.

    What isn't clear to me is: since hardware is increasingly powerful, why is the size in memory of a module important? It's not as if different "species" of a module are competing for limited memory in a literal sense. Something like DBI is quite large, but it's undeniably more successful than database-specific modules were (you're not going to use an XS wrapper around libpq, even if it was t

    • The reason we've gotten away with using a lot of memory for so long is exactly because hardware is getting more powerful. In times of plenty, waste or resource usage is not an selection factor.

      But the time frames I'm talking about here are quite long. I'm looking at evolution of module usage over 3-10 year periods.

      Memory does eventually become important, if only for a subset of people. (Think mobile phones)

      I have one monstrous private application that uses 80-90 meg of RAM B to load, before doing any work o
  • The holy grail for this area would be one equation to express how "evolved" something (anything) is. The same equation should be able to demonstrate why a human is more evolved than bacteria, why a pre-nova star is more evolved than a new star, and how evolved a human is relative to a star.

    I think you will have a hard time finding such an equation, because I don't think there is a sense in which a human is more evolved than bacteria.

    I'm not just saying this to be cute. I'm a biology student, and my un

    • It may well be that if you can come with an equation to compare the "evolvedness" (or some more sophisticated concept) that a bacteria and a human are simply too close, and the difference (while existing) may just bee too small to be noticable.

      But what if you tried to compare the "evolvedness" of a bacteria and a rock.

      Or instead of a rock, how about a simple non-living self-replicating molecule?

      If some metric can be found, then perhaps they can be applied to the difference between bacteria and humans. And m
      • It may well be that if you can come with an equation to compare the "evolvedness" (or some more sophisticated concept) that a bacteria and a human are simply too close, and the difference (while existing) may just bee too small to be noticable.

        Your reply to my "you won't find any, since it's not there" seems to be "maybe it will be too small to notice".

        FWIW, I believe we won't find a metric or a scale along which a human would come out more evolved than bacteria; not because the differences will be to

        • I certainly agree that evolution is a process of adjustment, rather than a progression.

          But if it can be established that there are long consistent long term trends in evolution, where we progress (in the large scale) from state A to state B, then perhaps that change can be expressed as a metric.

          Lets not call that evolution, how about we call it futureification. :)