Java code has the pseudo-ability to re-generate the original source through decompilation. Unfortunately given the size of any executable it would be years worth of work to reverse-engineer the understanding without explanation. I struggle to even understand the traceback of any Java failure :-)
Open source, by definition, already has the source available. Only the URL of the github repository and the hash number corresponding to the current executable is needed. I haven't worked for IBM since 1995, the year IBM Research eliminated the math department, including me. My ground-breaking work in Artificial Intelligence has yet to be cited by anyone so their decision was probably wise. Tim On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 1:01 AM Terence Kelly <tpke...@eecs.umich.edu> wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > Your observations seem sound. Keep in mind, however, that we're not > confronted with an either/or choice. The chicken/egg aspect of literate > executables means that, in your context, we can arrange for the PDF to > generate code *and* for the code to generate PDF. Cyclic dependency > graphs take some getting used to, but one can learn to love them. > > If literate execution isn't right for Axiom, perhaps it can benefit other > IBM open source projects. If you circulate the paper among your > colleagues I'd be interested to see if they find useful applications. > > _Queue_ readers are remarkably creative and routinely find uses for Drill > Bits ideas that I never anticipated. I wonder what your colleagues will > come up with. > > Thanks. > > -- Terence > > > On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, Tim Daly wrote: > > > ... > > > > The above considerations leads me to the conclusion that the PDF is the > > thing that generates code rather than the code generating the PDF. >
