Will Godot be helpful? Given what I’m making is non graphical and I don’t really want to use pre-simulated stuff.
I don’t want to do it absolutely from scratch. I do want something that makes the math easier, but not restrict me in how I simulate something.
So I want something that would give me common functions used in simulations, but not something that gives me “here’s a model for money or person”.
I am simulating a database table as a json list. So a join table would be simulated also as a separate list (or separate json file).
What I described in the comment above is the same thing I originally described, but expanded.
A dependency relation can still be many to many (and in my case, it is). The comment above gives an example to prove it.
Sqlite is nice but the file would not be readable in a plaintext-like format from my understanding.
That’s a good point!
The reason I am using JSON is so I can have a flat file, sorta plaintext. This way, the storage is easily readable by the user without any special tools, and can even be debugged or modified directly, or using a tool like jq. All this without the need for a heavy database engine, indexing, etc (I am not operating at a large scale). I dont believe MongoDB would be suitable for me based on this, but please let me know if you think I am wrong.
The list would still allow a many-to-many relationship. Let demonstrate:
entity A and entity B both have 2 members: A-1, A-2, B-1, and B-2.
we add a “relations” field to entity A, which is a list of IDs from B, describing the list of B’s that A is related to.
A-1 has the relations field as: [] and A-2 has [].
As you can see, this is a many-to-many relationship. Each of our entities is tied to multiple entities. So this is many on both sides, hence many to many
Currently, I am storing entities in a JSON array / list. every element in this list corresponds to one instance of that entity.
I could express a many-to-many relationship as just another field in that entity that happens to be a list / array, or I can imitate a SQL join table by creating a separate JSON list to log an instance of that relation.
Are there any benefits to the second approach?
I suppose you’re right. But I thought the reason we are using conceptual models of computation is to not concern ourselves with the implementation details of the physical world and real computers. It’s why we have an infinite tape, for example.
Representing a “sum a list of numbers” problem in terms of binary logic gates would be the opposite of that. We’re complicating the problem. Turing machines as I’ve seen them are not that low level. Would binary addition be the sensible way to sum a list of numbers in a turing machine?
Your answer is still convincing though… I suppose we can represent functions as series of verifiers. But my only remaining point of confusion is… Is that really the better way?
How would you represent something like “sum a list of numbers” as components of verifiers?
Are you taking a class or reading a book?
Reading a book actually. A programmer by craft who never studied CS, so decided to do it on my own. I appreciate the depth of your answer, thank you! :)
So Turing machines cannot be considered equivalent to algorithms when we involve steps like random number generation? How does church-turing address this? Isn’t that part of what’s “computable”?
Well interpretability of a non standard license is problematic, but that’s true for any kind of new license. By that argument we should oppose any kind of change, positive or not.
Imo this change is positive. We should actively be against corporate leeching.
You only have to give back if yours literally redistributing a modified version of the thing.
If you use the software without modifying it directly (such as building on top of it, or building something that uses it), then that’s allowed.
Also if you make use of the software commercially, without necessarily distributing it, then that’s also allowed. For example, Google could (I think they actually already do) modify the Linux kernel, and use it all across their company internally. They don’t have to give back, since they don’t distribute it.
And last, if you don’t modify the software but charge people using it, that’s completely allowed.
The GPL people are naive too because GPL doesn’t always prevent it either.
You may not X in a way that X
Definitely reads weird to me. It should suffice to say “you may not X”.
Fedora and debian support the corporate definitions of FOSS, so their opinions do not matter here.
it applies to everybody
I don’t think most of us want to offer services by hosting a service without contributing back the code. If they do, I am happy that it is a requirement that they give back. Only for-profit companies will have an issue with this.
They cheaped out on the lawyer. Maybe it’s a chatGPT lawyer.
RSAL seems weird and I need to research it more. But I don’t mind SSPL at all. It only hurts companies who hope to use open source without wanting to give back. From my perspective that’s good.
People don’t realize that OOP was pushed because some companies, like Sun microsystems, profited from its popularity.
Most people use JavaScript for this nowadays, but most commentary also hates on it.
I’ll be real with you. There’s a reason JavaScript keeps being chosen despite the hate. It’s so much easier and the dev experience is much more polished for creating desktop apps.
The reason it’s hated on is that it is running a browser in the background, which people view as too bloated for a desktop app. Moreover, JS tends not to play well with system-wide themeing like GTK or QT.
But in the end, as a developer, you’ll be dealing with a lot of messiness going with anything else. If you’re up for a challenge, do try other things. But if you just want something that works and looks nice, do Js