DVCS and good merges

While it may be true that a DVCS (i.e. multiple repositories) implies good support for branching and merging else the DVCS would be a nightmare to use, it's incorrect to logically conclude that good support for branching and merging implies that someone must be using a DVCS (A -> B does not mean B -> A). Decentralization or support for multiple repositories is a different question than whether the version control system has "dumb" merging. The benefits of easier collaboration (we can pull and push work-in-progress to each other without committing to the "canonical" repo) and offline work are more honest justifications for DVCS than mere good merges.

my favorite word for today is complexify

It ends in "-fy", it's a neat opposite to "simplify", and it's satisfying to have the word itself be a bit cumbersome to say and understand. Call a consultant today to help you complexify your infrastructure!

I'm GLAD I'm not programming in natural human language

At least one of the hard and undeniable facts of software development doesn't really swipe a developer across the face until he or she starts work: the difficulty of extracting good information from people. Someone may say "the bill is a set rate per unit" but a mere five minutes later, after further interrogation, is finally coaxed into saying "customers pay a flat rate for items in categories three and four". Similarly, the reliability of the words "never" or "always" should be closely scrutinized when spoken by people who aren't carefully literal. (On the other hand, xkcd has illustrated that literal responses are inappropriate in contexts like small talk...)

I'm convinced that this difficulty is partially caused by natural human language. It's too expressive. It isn't logically rigorous. By convention it supports multiple interpretations. While these attributes enable it to metaphorically branch out into new domains and handle ambiguous or incompletely-understood "analog" situations, the same attributes imply that it's too imprecise for ordering around a computing machine. Just as "I want a house with four bedrooms and two bathrooms" isn't a sufficient set of plans to build a house, "I want to track my inventory" isn't a sufficient set of software instructions to build a program (or even a basis on which to select one to buy).

Every time I perform analytical/requirements-gathering work, I'm reminded of why I doubt that natural human language will ever be practical for programming, and why I doubt that my job will become obsolete any time soon. I can envision what the programming would be like. In my head, the computer sounds like Majel Barrett.

Me: "Computer, I want to periodically download a file and compare the data it contains over time using a graph."
Computer: "Acknowledged. Download from where?"
Me: "I'll point at it with my mouse. There."
Computer: "Acknowledged. Define periodically."
Me: "Weekly."
Computer: "Acknowledged. What day of the week and what time of the day?"
Me: "Monday, 2 AM."
Computer: "Acknowledged. What if this time is missed?"
Me: "Download at the next available opportunity."
Computer: "Acknowledged."
Me: "No, wait, only download at the next available opportunity when the system load is below ___ ."
Computer: "Acknowledged. What if there is a failure to connect?"
Me: "Retry."
Computer: "Acknowledged. Retry until the connection succeeds?"
Me (getting huffy): "No! No more than three tries within an eight-hour interval."
Computer: "Acknowledged. Where is the file stored?"
Me: "Storage location ______ ."
Computer: "Acknowledged. What if the space is insufficient?"
Me: "Remove the least recent file."
Computer: "Acknowledged. What data is in the file?"
Me (now getting tired): "Here's a sample."
Computer: "Acknowledged. What is the time interval for the graph?"
Me: "The last thirty data points."
Computer: "Acknowledged. What is the color of the points? Does the graph contain gridlines? What are the graph dimensions? How will the graph be viewed?"
Me: "Oh, if only I had an analyst!"

your brain on CSPRNG

Not too long ago I used a cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator API for assigning unique identifiers to users for requesting an unauthenticated but personalized semi-sensitive resource over the Internet. They already have the typical unique organizational IDs assigned to them in the internal databases, but these IDs are far from secret. As much as possible, the resource identifier/URL for a particular user had to be unpredictable and incalculable (and also had to represent sufficient bits such that a brute force attack is impractical, which is no big deal from a performance standpoint because these identifiers are only generated on request). Also, we've committed to the unauthenticated resource itself not containing any truly sensitive details - the user simply must log in to the actual web site to view those.

Anyhow, as my mind was drifting aimlessly before I got my coffee today, I wondered if the CSPRNG could be an analogy for the brain's creativity. Unlike a plain pseudo-random number generator that's seeded by a single value, the CSPRNG has many inputs of "entropy" or uncorrelated bits. The bits can come from any number of sources in the computer system itself, including the hardware, which is one reason why the CSPRNG is relatively slow at processing random numbers.

But like a CSPRNG algorithm the brain is connected to myriad "inputs" all the time, streaming from within and without the body. Meanwhile, the brain is renowned for its incredible feats of creativity. It's common for people to remark "that was a random thought" and wonder "where that came from". Given all these entropic bits and the stunning network effects of the cortex (an implementation of "feedback units" that outshines any CSPRNG), should we be surprised that the brain achieves a pseudorandom state? I hesitate to call it true randdomness in the same way as someone who believes the brain relies on quantum-mechanical effects; people who try to recite a "random sequence" tend to epically fail.

I'm not sure that this makes any real sense. I'm not suggesting that a CSPRNG is a suitable computational model for human thought. It's merely interesting to ponder. It's another reminder that just as software isn't a ghost-like nebulous presence that "inhabits" a computer - a microprocessor engineer would tell you that each software instruction is as real as the current that a pacemaker expels to regulate a heartbeat - our thoughts and minds are inseparable from the form or "hardware" of the brain, and the brain is inseparable from the nervous system, and the nervous system is inseparable from the rest of the body.