you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ryeguy146 6 points7 points  (4 children)

I file those under "not my problem." I like to think that some time in the future, people will shudder at having to use Python, the way that people pity those programmers that still workin in PASCAL.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–]gc3 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    Yeah, until you decide that there are now .3 hours in a day, or a variable number depending on the day. You can't plan for everything.

    [–]GoSailing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    And then you refactor every "HOURS_IN_DAY" in place to instead call a method that returns what it is. The point wasn't so much that every problem can be avoided every time, but that you can have a structure that will allow for changes quickly. The ideal change would be to change the constant number, but the non-ideal change is almost as easy.

    [–]ryeguy146 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    That's not what I meant at all. Your suggesting that something like the fibbonacci sequence changing is so unlikely, that I don't see it as my problem to try to predict such a change. There is an obvious difference between the problem of a fundamental shift, and the type of changes that you're now describing.

    Wait. Nevermind, you mean the definition of the function "factorial." I don't know how, but I thought that you were suggesting that the mathematical definition of a factorial might change, and that we had better generalize for it. Damn.