State of D 2018 Survey (page 7)

On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 15:52:02 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: > On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 13:51 +0000, Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: >> […] >> >> O.T.: Which is a well known number when it comes to cognition. It’s usually 7+-2. > > A number that is often misunderstood, and misused. As in this case. > > http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/magical_number_seven.html Won’t load for me( Anyhow far as I can tell it is a measure of how many entities simultaniously you can hold in your attention, such objects in a picture frame. This doesn’t represent long-term memory or other capacities, which is likely the case here.

March 03, 2018

Re: State of D 2018 Survey

Posted by Russel Winder
in reply to Dmitry Olshansky

Permalink

Russel Winder

Posted in reply to Dmitry Olshansky

Attachments:

signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part)

Permalink

On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 16:06 +0000, Dmitry Olshansky via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote:
> On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 15:52:02 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> > […]
> > 
> > http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/magical_number_seven.html
> 
> Won’t load for me(

How annoying. Definitely works for me as they say.

It's a 2007 chapter from an introduction to psychology, the first sensible link that came up via a DuckDuckGo search. There are a variety of other places to look. Here's another.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/short-term-memory.html

> Anyhow far as I can tell it is a measure of how many entities simultaniously you can hold in your attention, such objects in a picture frame.

It's a 1956 paper by Miller that claims 7 is the magic number for short term memory, the number of chunks of stuff you can keep for a certain period. A chunk is not a defined thing such as characters or words, but they are examples.  I am not sure what the experimental status is of this "theory", but I suspect no-one has disproved it as yet.

> This doesn’t represent long-term memory or other capacities, which is likely the case here.

Exactly.

-- 
Russel.
==========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Saturday, 3 March 2018 at 16:59:56 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: > On Sat, 2018-03-03 at 16:06 +0000, Dmitry Olshansky via DuckDuckGo search. > It's a 1956 paper by Miller that claims 7 is the magic number for short term memory, the number of chunks of stuff you can keep for a certain period. A chunk is not a defined thing such as characters or words, but they are examples. I am not sure what the experimental status is of this "theory", but I suspect no-one has disproved it as yet. I know people who indirectly proved that theory to be correct in many unexpected ways. In particular when people are asked to define “distant” or “hot” as a set of classes they usually settle for around 7 states and cannot distinguish finer ones. Same problem with colors, as in defining shades of the same color. All that said, the trick is that ~7 applies to any “thing” and thusly your capacity increases if you can “merge” things to a single entity or otherwise establish relations or laws, doing reduction on a number of entities. Likely composition is a sideeffect of this tendency and 7 is not exact number in any wat.

On Wednesday, 28 February 2018 at 13:41:56 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: > > https://seb134.typeform.com/to/H1GTak > I might have overseen it, but in the survey I missed the feature "being able to allocate withing @nogc-CTFE-functions". Some people want to promote a @nogc library and they cant use CTFE to the full extend then. ( see also: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18119 )

But seriously, Stack overflow is a reputation-based system, it very hostile from the very start, when you don't have enough reputation for pretty much everything, and SO vehemently nags you about this on every possible occasion, even baiting you to use functionality only to later tell that you don't have enough reputation to use it. How can anyone like it is beyond me.

On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 15:13:28 UTC, Kagamin wrote: > But seriously, Stack overflow is a reputation-based system, it very hostile from the very start, when you don't have enough reputation for pretty much everything, and SO vehemently nags you about this on every possible occasion, even baiting you to use functionality only to later tell that you don't have enough reputation to use it. How can anyone like it is beyond me. It's also very strict and probably have of the posts within Learn here wouldn't be allowed there.

On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 17:26:50 UTC, bauss wrote: > On Sunday, 4 March 2018 at 15:13:28 UTC, Kagamin wrote: >> But seriously, Stack overflow is a reputation-based system, it very hostile from the very start, when you don't have enough reputation for pretty much everything, and SO vehemently nags you about this on every possible occasion, even baiting you to use functionality only to later tell that you don't have enough reputation to use it. How can anyone like it is beyond me. > > It's also very strict and probably have of the posts within Learn here wouldn't be allowed there. half*

On Friday, 2 March 2018 at 12:01:33 UTC, Russel Winder wrote: > So having D2.999 is fine per se, but advertises a lack of change and a lack of ambition since the language name is D not D2. D just doesn't follow semver. If it did, we would have D79 now, nothing else even comes close to this. And I suspect it won't adopt semver because major number would be so ridiculously high and will advertize something else. > Fortran, C++, and Java show an obsessive adherence to backward compatibility and yet they increase their major numbers to give the appearance at least of forward progress. C++ and Fortran don't have version numbers, those are brand numbers.

Forums