Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #1517
| Path | csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!feeder.erje.net!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Tue, 01 May 2012 02:53:03 -0500 |
| From | "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> |
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| References | <12217875.401.1335542191031.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjj38> <W5udnasYne_KmQDSnZ2dnUVZ7q2dnZ2d@bt.com> <1rnzov5qdfjg9$.1xzgbukwvzdqc$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| Subject | Re: quantifying bloat |
| Date | Tue, 1 May 2012 08:53:12 +0100 |
| X-Priority | 3 |
| X-MSMail-Priority | Normal |
| X-Newsreader | Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 |
| X-RFC2646 | Format=Flowed; Original |
| X-MimeOLE | Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512 |
| Message-ID | <oOOdncDIyY_CCwLSnZ2dnUVZ7vCdnZ2d@bt.com> (permalink) |
| Lines | 41 |
| X-Usenet-Provider | http://www.giganews.com |
| X-AuthenticatedUsername | NoAuthUser |
| X-Trace | sv3-VXZXzvrPADce4WePxzFBET5DrROz5kL3gghdLi+HmSRBrlmfI0WSAXvdwQuw2R1IbgJ/AXZS+SX1bAl!dm1thZFf6JpiWe6LDyLUGbZ2rvdiUAKpv2BLBybLe5bX9wP9LIHAeQ/Cc7bzzUCD9w6xTDAtYzA= |
| X-Complaints-To | abuse@btinternet.com |
| X-DMCA-Complaints-To | abuse@btinternet.com |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly |
| X-Postfilter | 1.3.40 |
| X-Original-Bytes | 3468 |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.programming:1517 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> The notion of information complexity is just rubbish. There is no
> information without an observer. So there is no complexity in raw data.
I think you've misunderstood the word "information" in the phrase "information
theory". In that context, it doesn't have the normal English meaning
(something similar to "knowledge" -- which must certainly have a "knower"), but
has a narrow technical (jargon) meaning which is very roughly -- the
information in a message is the [size of the] set of other messages which might
have been transmitted instead.
That's very rough, of course, but it captures the important point that
"information theory" isn't about information, as that word is normally
understood, at all.
That definition (the real version, or my paraphrase) only applies when there is
a known set of potential messages to consider. So it doesn't directly apply to
just one program (what set is that program drawn from?), but it is very common
to wave ones hands a bit, and treat individual passages from the text as if
drawn from a set which is exemplified by the whole (available) program. In
which case, it becomes possible to talk of the information-density of "the
program" (I don't like this misuse of words myself, I think it's confusing,
although there is a perfectly well-defined concept there)
So, consider a program made of many function definitions (or lines, or classes
or whatever). If knowing the text of all the other function definitions gives
you a better guess of the text of some arbitrarily chosen remaining one than
you would have if you did the same exercise with a different program, then the
first is definitely more redundant/compressible than the second. The
hypothesis here is that similar reasoning might justify the claim that the
first was more "bloated" than the second.
I think that one could use that sort of technique to identify programs where a
lot of copy-paste repetition exists, and that is certainly something one
/could/ label as "bloat" -- for all it's not the only meaning of "bloat", nor
does that label really capture the essence of what's wrong with the code.
-- chris
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
quantifying bloat bob <bob@coolfone.comze.com> - 2012-04-27 08:56 -0700
Re: quantifying bloat hopcode <hopcode@invalid.de> - 2012-04-27 18:16 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-04-29 16:22 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-04-29 10:03 +0100
Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-29 11:36 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-04-29 15:09 -0700
Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-04-30 10:09 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-05-01 08:53 +0100
Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-01 10:52 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat hopcode <hopcode@invalid.de> - 2012-05-02 04:02 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-05-05 10:03 +0100
Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-05 12:50 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat hopcode <hopcode@invalid.de> - 2012-05-05 16:23 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-05 17:43 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat gremnebulin <peterdjones@yahoo.com> - 2012-05-03 09:27 -0700
Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-03 18:50 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-05-04 13:52 +0000
Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-04 16:05 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat hopcode <hopcode@invalid.de> - 2012-05-04 20:44 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2012-05-04 20:32 +0000
Re: quantifying bloat "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-05-05 10:16 +0100
Re: quantifying bloat James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2012-05-02 02:44 -0700
Re: quantifying bloat "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-05-05 10:11 +0100
Re: quantifying bloat "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-05-05 13:22 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat hopcode <hopcode@invalid.de> - 2012-05-05 16:27 +0200
Re: quantifying bloat rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> - 2012-04-29 11:01 +0100
csiph-web