Simplicity in being a coder...
For last few days I was all busy with the Operating systems project, fiddling with various concepts of File systems. Indirect blocking, synchronization, cache operations, it felt as if my whole existence was at stake, get these algorithms running right on time or its the end of everything. Now it sounds funny...but that was the tempo with with which I was struggling day and night, playing the game of 1 and 0!. Ya..thats what it is...a matter of 1 or 0, just two choices! After getting done with the submission, I was then browsing through CNN and TOI, and it struck me, how simple my life is!
I just have to deal with 0s and 1s. I have no ambiguity in terms of what is required, my desired output (we are just talking about well-defined requirements here [;)]), so I have a clear vision of right or wrong. It's therefore no difficult task as compared to complications in other professions. There, the choices are itself unbouded, the problem starts right at the place of defining all of them, forget the matter of choosing the right one. The game no longer remains black or white..it involves all sorts of colors, with varying shades per person. Choices are made on personal prefernces, temporal and situational; non-cooperation creeps in, conflicts arise and the whole set-up turns out into one big chaos.
But then I think, it's not really that complicated. We make it so. Since there are only two possibilities, either right or wrong, it drops down to just two choices. There's actually just "yes" or "no", no "may-be" option at all. "Right" remains universal "Right" and "Wrong" as universal "Wrong". So, the whole world again turns black or white. Does this stand lead to a fair socitey? umm....probably (here I go...contradicting myself! Oh btw, I just realized the importance of a "switch- statement" [:D])
It surely is the basic building block of a fair society, but we can't just get rid of complications...can we? There are lots of situations where it seems like this theory holds no ground (If it was that easy, it would have already become a part of our lives :D). For example, take the profession of a teacher. A teacher has to adopt different strategies of teaching for different types of students. What works for one might not work with the other. So his "right" or "wrong" changes per person. (If you notice, we are just talking about different flavors of "right" here. You know where we'll head, if we start about "wrong"s.) Thus, however hard we try to categorize, exceptions do exist (to correct myself) when we go down to the implementation level, forcing us to incorporate some grey shades. This gives way to further digressions and we land up exactly where we are! The toughest question to answer is who decides what is "universal right" and what is "universal wrong", rather can we actually define these? Unfortunately, we have no Oracle here. It looks like we are just left on our own to figure it out. Decide for yourself and go on.
Hah! Giving it a thought, its actually commendable that even after being chaotic, partially cooperating, partially competing or conflicting - whatever you call it, this system is still somehow self-balancing and therefore persistent. The more I think about it, the more I get amazed. We made it and we run it! I guess, the zest to exist, that breathes in all of us is the actual power source for this system. Hats off to our spirits that hold high above all complications!
I just have to deal with 0s and 1s. I have no ambiguity in terms of what is required, my desired output (we are just talking about well-defined requirements here [;)]), so I have a clear vision of right or wrong. It's therefore no difficult task as compared to complications in other professions. There, the choices are itself unbouded, the problem starts right at the place of defining all of them, forget the matter of choosing the right one. The game no longer remains black or white..it involves all sorts of colors, with varying shades per person. Choices are made on personal prefernces, temporal and situational; non-cooperation creeps in, conflicts arise and the whole set-up turns out into one big chaos.
But then I think, it's not really that complicated. We make it so. Since there are only two possibilities, either right or wrong, it drops down to just two choices. There's actually just "yes" or "no", no "may-be" option at all. "Right" remains universal "Right" and "Wrong" as universal "Wrong". So, the whole world again turns black or white. Does this stand lead to a fair socitey? umm....probably (here I go...contradicting myself! Oh btw, I just realized the importance of a "switch- statement" [:D])
It surely is the basic building block of a fair society, but we can't just get rid of complications...can we? There are lots of situations where it seems like this theory holds no ground (If it was that easy, it would have already become a part of our lives :D). For example, take the profession of a teacher. A teacher has to adopt different strategies of teaching for different types of students. What works for one might not work with the other. So his "right" or "wrong" changes per person. (If you notice, we are just talking about different flavors of "right" here. You know where we'll head, if we start about "wrong"s.) Thus, however hard we try to categorize, exceptions do exist (to correct myself) when we go down to the implementation level, forcing us to incorporate some grey shades. This gives way to further digressions and we land up exactly where we are! The toughest question to answer is who decides what is "universal right" and what is "universal wrong", rather can we actually define these? Unfortunately, we have no Oracle here. It looks like we are just left on our own to figure it out. Decide for yourself and go on.
Hah! Giving it a thought, its actually commendable that even after being chaotic, partially cooperating, partially competing or conflicting - whatever you call it, this system is still somehow self-balancing and therefore persistent. The more I think about it, the more I get amazed. We made it and we run it! I guess, the zest to exist, that breathes in all of us is the actual power source for this system. Hats off to our spirits that hold high above all complications!
posted by zero-state at 11:34 PM
5 Comments:
Good one ! Author seems to be maturing as a blogger ! Expecting better ones in the coming days.
I believe 'complications' are perceptions of mind. Manifestation of our true spirits is seen in the simplification of these complications.
"Colors in life" - are they not the pleasant illusions we bring to our lives? However stupid it be.. we amuse ourselves with things that are useless merely bcoz they are beautiful ! or do we choose to stay away from these digressions juz bcoz they are redundant ? I guess thatz a personal choice.
"'Colors in life' - are they not the pleasant illusions we bring to our lives?' - not exactly...first, they can be illusions at times, but not always pleasant; second, by 'colors' I meant the various possibilities for 'rights' and 'wrongs', depending on context, time , situation etc. These are not illusions - they do exist for that person (yes, for others they can be, looking at it subjectively) in reality (which is again a question, shall continue on this some other time :P). These choices are not his creations for amusement, they are his means and purpose to exist (Oh, and in some cases, he might not even have the previlege to choose). So, there's no question of choosing to stay away...we are already into it, from day one (sounds like some dialog from Matrix? :P)! We are just talking about the choices within it.
"'complications' are perceptions of mind" - again, yes and no.
If we are talking about how one takes a particular situation, yes that completely depends on what rating (in terms of complexity) a person gives to it. For one, it might be a big issue while another might just shrug it off saying "no big deal!" So, the point is - ways of dealing are different, the situation remains the same.
Here comes the no part - these different ways do exist. They are not mental creations. The multiplicity of choices here, are the real complications.
author seems to be zapped between 0s and 1s ... pick a side lady! extremely self-contradictory notes. Once you say there are only two options, then you say there are "flavors". then to the previous comment, you've replied with a yes and a no! if there are only two options - a)yes/true/right/1 b)no/false/wrong/0 , i dont think there is choice (c) which says both of the above. in fact in you own word, you say there are exceptions/ambiguities as in all cases. why make a statement in the first place that there are only two options? being from CS [i guess..], isn't the challenge in life all about disambiguation of thoughts such as these?
-peace
Thanks for the comment.
Actually this discussion is helping me go deeper into what was just a thought, worth noting. I was not very clear in my words when I wrote it. But all your questions are helping me put it better.
To re-state myself, "there are just two choices, 'right' or 'wrong'" - that's absolutely correct. But there's no 'universal right' or 'universal wrong'. The semantics of these two opposites (right or wrong), are different for different people and thats why the "flavors" come into picture. It is somewhat similar to having the same variables but using them for storing different values in different contexts (a very crude example, I know!).
So, theoretically its still 0 and 1 in life, but at the implementation level, there are lots of variations.
Isn't this realization, a step towards disambiguation? Next time when I find myself lost in all choices, I just have to remind myself of this...and then the question boils down to what value/meaning do I associate to the only two possibilities. "What to do?" is no longer a problem, I have to work on "how to do?"
CS is the only branch in where we create problems for ourselves, solve them, create new problems...and so on.
We had cute little 1's and 0's, we introduced a bit of complexity(assembly lang) to supposedly make our lives simpler. Then came C over assembly, then there was a virtual machine over OS written in C, and then there was another language for that VM.
Life is similar, we complicate our lives to keep is easy and simple but instead we complicate it more.... I guess kids these days are calling it progress :P
Borderline ...I agree with you, we do have fairly well defined tasks
Post a Comment
<< Home