Skip to main content

Algorithms versus Architecture

I was trying to explain to someone the other day what I did; he was in BioInformatics. It occurred to me that there was a dimension in computer science that I had not been able to articulate properly before: algorithms and architectures.

Some people who call themselves Computer Scientists of one flavor or another focus on solving what seem to be basically algorithms. For example, getting the right image processing algorithm or credit scoring algorithm. On the other hand, others who also call themselves Computer Scientists focus less on the algorithms but on the organization of the computer system. For example, ensuring that the image processing can actually be used effectively in a user's context.

I have noticed a tendency for people to clump themselves into either the algorithm class or the architecture class. I personally gravitate to the latter. I have also noticed a tendency for algorithmists (sic) to discount the contribution and relevance of the work of the architects -- and vice versa. It shows up as “I've solved the problem with this cool algorithm” on the one hand and “Apply that function here” on the other hand.

Of course, both are important. It does happen that many of the hard architecture problems are in arenas where the algorithms themselves are trivial (adding up a column of numbers anyone). Similarly, the UI for a video player is also pretty simple, even if the playback algorithm itself is not.

In the world of Service Oriented Architecture, with action at a distance to be supported in a safe and effective way, we have a situation where we need both world-class algorithms (e.g., to correctly infer the consistency of a purchase order with a vendor's Ontology) and world-class architectures (e.g., to ensure that we can actually place those orders in a reliable, safe and effective way).

Popular posts from this blog

Comments Should be Meaningless

This is something of a counterintuitive idea: Comments should be meaningless What, I hear you ask, are you talking about? Comments should communicate to the reader! At least that is the received conventional wisdom handed does over the last few centuries (decades at least). Well, certainly, if you are programming in Assembler, or C, then yes, comments should convey meaning because the programming language cannot So, conversely, as a comment on the programming language itself, anytime the programmer feels the imperative to write a meaningful comment it is because the language is not able to convey the intent of the programmer. I have already noticed that I write far fewer comments in my Java programs than in my C programs.  That is because Java is able to capture more of my meaning and comments would be superfluous. So, if a language were able to capture all of my intentions, I would never need to write a comment. Hence the title of this blog.

Hook, Line and Sinker

It is well documented that people’s #1 fear is speaking in public ! Effective and efficient public speaking is a whole topic in its own right; but a few simple tips might help to both improve your effectiveness and help to reduce the anxiety. You may be called on to talk about your work at very short notice; or you may have a week’s notice; and you may be required to give a formal slide show or just a brief verbal update. Many, if not most of the issues, are the same. The Hook Newspaper editors call the first paragraph of an article ‘the hook’. Its meant to hook you into reading the rest of the piece. On the other hand, the classical ‘say what you are going to say, say it, and say what you said’ approach gives people plenty of time to switch off. The hook may be playful, it may be controversial, but it must communicate why the listener should pay attention. The Line Its a conversation! Even if no one says anything they are listening and thinking; and maybe replying to you in their head

Existential Types are the flip side of generics

Generic types, as can now be seen in all the major programming languages have a flip side that has yet to be widely appreciated: existential types. Variables whose types are generic may not be modified within a generic function (or class): they can be kept in variables, they can be passed to other functions (provided they too have been supplied to the generic function), but other than that they are opaque. Again, when a generic function (or class) is used, then the actual type binding for the generic must be provided – although that type may also be generic, in which case the enclosing entity must also be generic. Existential types are often motivated by modules. A module can be seen to be equivalent to a record with its included functions: except that modules also typically encapsulate types too. Abstract data types are a closely related topic that also naturally connect to existential types (there is an old but still very relevant and readable article on the topic Abstract types have