|
|
Name: Miro Brada
Email:
Click here to email
Web Site:
http://mirobrada.blogspot.com
All submission(s) by this author
Before I have started programming I had graduated psychology (psychometrics), studied Phd in economics (public economics, industrial organization), made research, interviews, chess compositions.
I put here some of my codes I did between 2005 and 2007, in Java: solution to the Producer-Consumer, in SQL: N Queens problem, pattern recognition, the shortest path, and one .NET utility.
Programming seems to be purely logical, but it is also ideological or dialectic because 'open source' versus 'proprietary software' dispute is omnipresent affecting not only software as such, but thinking or programming terminology as well. E.g. 'database' may be interpreted as an ideological concept to monopolize data structure, but the temporary monopoly is necessary (motivation factor) for the new software to arise...
‘Bounded rationality’ is another factor, e.g. why is the most common: relation database model, so inefficient (fragmenting data)? Or why is not all code organized to one universal algorithm (Turing Machine, 1966) producing anything based only on parameters, instead of a bunch of functions often duplicating the same code?
The increasing number of actors, e.g. various browsers (and their versions) or mobile devices, adds new possibilities with increasing pressure on data flexibility (json). New options for sounds, video or real time interactions, presupposes ever changing and more complex functionality.
The logical architecture maximizing its re-usage, flexibility, intelligibility, is inevitable for a well functioning application. 'Evolution' from procedural through object oriented, to functional programming, reflects this need too.
The complexity of the data mining, machine learning, neural network, implicitly enforces the higher organization of the code. However is it possible to define some principle 'in itself' leading to qualitatively better structure, explicitly?
New strategy in chess composition (1928) is such a principle, with numerous examples of changed (reused) functions, keys, units, which altogether create sophisticated and original patterns with appealing aesthetics quality.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3902481&id=191057181368
|
| | 'New aesthetics"
| |
Look at the chess diagram above (or open its facebook link) to see the 2nd prize (I won) in the British journal The Problemist (1997), for mate in 2 moves with the cyclic change of key and 2 mates (try / solution). Composing the chess problems (I did) is a mental free-skating, gymnastic, choreography... The judge(s) ranks the best compositions according to their originality, intricacy, and economical construction. ignore this
| |
'How difficult to solve it' had been the first criterion for the best compositions. Later Italians G Cristoffanini and A Mari (en l'Echiquier Belge 1928) focused on the change of mates (new strategy) to produce reciprocal changes of mates - a double jump (AB-BA). A cyclic change of mates - a triple jump (ABC-BCA) prototype was composed by Slovak L Lacny (1949), followed by Scottish N Macleod (1950), followed by the 1st quadruple jump (1955) composed again by Lacny, etc...
| |
Picasso had defined sort of 'new strategy' in cubism (Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, 1907) changing the African masks' attributes. Likewise objects' metamorphosis by MC Escher (1898-1972), the time lines of Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958), the discrete energy elements: E = hv, of M Planck quantum hypothesis (1900), the discovery of calculus (new mathematics) by I Newton and G Leibniz in the late 17th century, 'Epic of Gilgamesh' from ancient Mesopotamia turning the fear of death into (one of) the first literature's form(s), etc...
¤ º ¤ ¤
|
The "new strategy" coincides with the Chinese ceaseless transition (change), challenging the 'identity' relation on which the European science clings.The identity in equations of mathematics / chemistry / physics, is illusionary as the left hand side differs (by position, time) from the right hand side (Heraclitus panta rhei): P is not P.
Understanding the "new aesthetics' behind the changes of the same units is a real personal revolution in thinking.
|
Am I exaggerating? ¿
Not at all (pas du tout)...
| |
MiRO BRADA
|
london, 4. MaY, 2010
| |
| Made in China [Zhongguó] |
|
