|
|
|
|
|
|
by Jensson
1672 days ago
|
|
|
> It is also impossible to incorporate something from other software without actually referencing it explicitly. No, some programming languages just injects symbols based on context. You'd have to compile it with the right dependencies for it to work, so it is impossible to know what it is supposed to be. And even if they reference some other file, that file might not even be present in the codebase, instead some framework says "fetch this file from some remote repository at this URL on the internet" and then it fetches some file from the node repository, which can be another file tomorrow for all we know. This sort of time variance is non-existent in math, so to me math is way more readable than most code. And you have probably seen a programming tutorial or similar which uses library functions that no longer exists in modern versions, tells you to call a function but the function was found in a library the tutorial forgot to tell you about, or many of the other things that can go wrong. |
|
|
Well, okay, yes, not all software projects deliver reproducible builds of their software. Some software is, in fact, complete garbage.
I'm also not using Gene Ray's TimeCube theory[0] as an example of a mathematical paper.
> This sort of time variance is non-existent in math
Not... entirely. You could cite a preprint that then changes in the final version.
> And you have probably seen a programming tutorial or similar which uses library functions that no longer exists in modern versions
Sure. And cited papers can be retracted entirely.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20070718050305/http://www.timecu...