Say you are a software engineer, or developer, or whatever other abstracted word for programmer that has some meaning to you. Say you have also been given some scientific computation problem, like estimating the value of with the Monte Carlo method.
Inscribe a circle of radius in a square of length . Then the probability a random point generated in the square is also inside the circle is equal to the ratio of the circle’s area to the square’s, which is .
We now have a method for approximating by generating a set of random points in the square and finding the ratio of those points also inside the circle. This value multiplied by 4 gives us an estimate of , which becomes more precise with an increasing volume of generated points.
Youperhaps vicariously through another, having already taken on some abstracted title for yourself, chose instead to over-engineer her perfectly good solution to be TheBestCode™
Since the only operations done here are on an array, all the loops can be eliminated in favor of immutable function calls on the original array. Even the instantiation of random points in the array can be sugared into the initializer.
This gives an artisanally-crafted code:
For now, this will be our final form:
But what is a point? In this case, a pair of coordinates. Let’s define the points as named tuples:
inCircle to be of any radius earlier, but of course that’s kind of useless since the function is specifically designed for measuring . What we should do is wrap our estimation script into one experimentation procedure that accepts a variable point sample size. This is the ultimate abstraction we could ask for.
After a multitude of revisions and totally misaligned priorities, we arrive to modular paradise.
I’m not sure. I would love to give a practical reason to over-engineering small codes besides as an exercise in program design, but I’m not sure there is one. If you think of one, please let me know. Otherwise, perhaps the only lesson here is that I have some kind of compulsion for modularizing codes to my liking.