Re: [fonc] Bio computer
As great an achievement as that is, shouldn't they be aiming to make a transistor like a cell? :-) Regards, Iian Sent from my iPhone On 30/03/2013, at 11:16 AM, Casey Ransberger wrote: > Someone finally got round to making a cell that acts like a transistor. You > knew they'd do it eventually;) > > http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/03/a-computer-inside-a-cell.html?ref=hp > > -- > Casey Ransberger > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] [talk] Cool Code - Kevlin Henney
John, That's true, but the design pattern book as valuable as it is is not a critical analysis of a particular piece of software. Nothing wrong with that of course just that it would be fascinating to see more analysis of individual programmes; not just code, but the design process, the ideas behind it. Ultimately, that's what literary analysis tries to do... Regards, Iian Sent from my iPhone On 02/12/2012, at 8:07 PM, John Nilsson wrote: > Isn't the pattern language literature exactly that? An effort to typeset and > edit interesting design artifacts. > > BR > John > > Den 2 dec 2012 10:30 skrev "Iian Neill" : > Benoit, > > I would very much like to read source code more often, as I suspect would > many others, but I think the problem lies in the fact that few coders or > publishers seem to think that code is worth studying. I know that sounds > outrageous but the simple fact is that there are many intellectual artefacts > as difficult as source code that are published and read avidly - e.g., > scientific articles, mathematical proofs, philosophical essays, musicological > analysis, poetry, etc. in these fields publication is considered essential to > the culture and energy and creativity is found to typeset and edit these > artefacts. In programming, the written analysis of programme design only ever > seems to happen in computer science textbooks, such as SICP, etc. > > I am often curious enough to look at the source code of some library, but are > usually discouraged by the lack of organisation in the presentation. Object > oriented code is particularly hard to get a handle on, compared to structured > programme examples in textbooks, as there an awful lot of boilerplate that > obscures the architecture. Technical documentation seems to be the only way > to get a mental map but it is often a dry overview that fails to capture the > thought process that went into the design. Sometimes I'm lead to the > melancholy conclusion that programme analysis -- I mean analysis in the sense > of a critical analysis of poetry (like William Empson's) or of art (like John > Ruskin or Kenneth Clark) -- isn't done because the programmer and the > community thinks of the code artefacts as obscolescent -- i.e., it will be > out of date soon, so why bother. Why else no serious critical activity > devoted to such a serious mental activity? Where are the software critics? > > Regards, > Iian > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 02/12/2012, at 11:41 AM, Benoît Fleury wrote: > > > "Although programming is a discipline with a very large canon of > > existing work to draw from, the only code most programmers read is the > > code they maintain." > > > > This topic came up a few times on this mailing list so I thought I > > would share this talk I found interesting. > > > > https://yow.eventer.com/yow-2012-1012/cool-code-by-kevlin-henney-1181 > > > > - Benoit > > ___ > > fonc mailing list > > fonc@vpri.org > > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
Re: [fonc] [talk] Cool Code - Kevlin Henney
Benoit, I would very much like to read source code more often, as I suspect would many others, but I think the problem lies in the fact that few coders or publishers seem to think that code is worth studying. I know that sounds outrageous but the simple fact is that there are many intellectual artefacts as difficult as source code that are published and read avidly - e.g., scientific articles, mathematical proofs, philosophical essays, musicological analysis, poetry, etc. in these fields publication is considered essential to the culture and energy and creativity is found to typeset and edit these artefacts. In programming, the written analysis of programme design only ever seems to happen in computer science textbooks, such as SICP, etc. I am often curious enough to look at the source code of some library, but are usually discouraged by the lack of organisation in the presentation. Object oriented code is particularly hard to get a handle on, compared to structured programme examples in textbooks, as there an awful lot of boilerplate that obscures the architecture. Technical documentation seems to be the only way to get a mental map but it is often a dry overview that fails to capture the thought process that went into the design. Sometimes I'm lead to the melancholy conclusion that programme analysis -- I mean analysis in the sense of a critical analysis of poetry (like William Empson's) or of art (like John Ruskin or Kenneth Clark) -- isn't done because the programmer and the community thinks of the code artefacts as obscolescent -- i.e., it will be out of date soon, so why bother. Why else no serious critical activity devoted to such a serious mental activity? Where are the software critics? Regards, Iian Sent from my iPhone On 02/12/2012, at 11:41 AM, Benoît Fleury wrote: > "Although programming is a discipline with a very large canon of > existing work to draw from, the only code most programmers read is the > code they maintain." > > This topic came up a few times on this mailing list so I thought I > would share this talk I found interesting. > > https://yow.eventer.com/yow-2012-1012/cool-code-by-kevlin-henney-1181 > > - Benoit > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
[fonc] Historical lessons to escape the current sorry state of personal computing?
Hi Ivan, My apologies if this came through twice but I didn't receive the original post in my mailing list subscription... Regards, Iian Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Iian Neill > Date: 19 July 2012 11:10:33 AM AEST > To: fonc@vpri.org > Subject: Re: [fonc] Historical lessons to escape the current sorry state of > personal computing? > > Hi Ivan, > > Please forgive the speculativeness and abstruseness of my response to your > question ... but it's the best I can do! > > The question that's really being asked here is, 'What is the future of > computing?' -- and I'm not sure it is possible to answer that question in the > abstract, just in the same way it wasn't possible to answer the question > 'What is the future of painting?' if it had been asked in the studio of > Cimabue before Giotto turned up. Without actually answering the question, > it's possible to speculate on the potential of the medium. To my mind, the > first distinction to make is between the instrumental and the essential > nature of the medium; by that I mean, between the purposes to which the > medium can be put as a tool -- the computations that can be made with it, its > mere utility -- and the possibilities of the medium as a medium for thinking > and imagining in. So to continue the art example, the art of painting is > itself the medium, and the introduction of, say, oil paints into Italy in the > beginning of the 15th century, while it was a huge technical advance that > allowed greater expressiveness, experimentation and delicacy -- and lead to > some genres of painting that were not practical before with tempera -- it > didn't represent the birth of a new field as such. The essential advance > happened arguably centuries earlier in the art of Nicolo Pisano in sculpture > and Giotto in painting in the awareness of the possibilities of space and > form, and in the reabsorption of the Greek notions of studied rational > observation of nature. Flatness in painting -- when it isn't an aesthetic > choice but a miserable inability -- is also a kind of flatness, a weakness, a > feebleness -- a sub-realism -- from a mental point of view. Giotto's > paintings have many masterly qualities but perhaps the paradigmatic > significance was his tremendous assertion of volume. Volume represented not > just solidity, or merely an advance in making something look > three-dimensional -- it literally advanced the art of painting by a power -- > it showed that it was possible to think of forms in the round, to be aware of > their sides, even of the backs of figures, while simultaneously depicting > them from a single viewpoint. Giotto's achievement also demonstrates that > this sense of volume -- while of course it exists in potential in everybody > -- had to be first imagined by him and brought into existence by sheer force > of will. To my mind it also suggests that things like the sense of volume > can actually be regarded as 'senses' of a kind -- 'virtual senses', if you > like, willed into existence by the mind -- and I think this is literally true > if you think about a sense as not merely a sense organ but a cognitive > process for which neuronal machinery exists in the brain, which we call > cortexes. > > So what is the relevance of this to the future of computing? My point above > is that although instrumental advances are powerful and important they are > fundamentally incremental, and that paradigm shifts only occur when essential > advances are made -- and essential advances are first intuited, imagined, and > then willed into existence -- and function like 'virtual senses' in the sense > that they both perceive sense data as well as actively organise data into new > concepts. This brings us back to the question of computing as a medium in > the instrumental and essential sense, and the general question of what effect > do instruments and tools have on the ability to conceptualise. What medium > does computing represent? Oil paints and brushes are the instruments of > painting -- arguably a flat surface is the essential medium, as it is the > essential difference between painting and sculpture. Computers can of course > be used as tools to create in these media -- digital paint programs, 3D > modelling software, etc., are instrumental equivalents -- but these are > extensions of existing tools, and arguably less artistically efficient than > traditional media (paints, violins, chisels, etc). Of course, computers can > digitally manipulate images, sounds, words, etc., in ways that are cumbersome > or practically impossible traditionally and
Re: [fonc] Historical lessons to escape the current sorry state of personal computing?
Hi Ivan, Please forgive the speculativeness and abstruseness of my response to your question ... but it's the best I can do! The question that's really being asked here is, 'What is the future of computing?' -- and I'm not sure it is possible to answer that question in the abstract, just in the same way it wasn't possible to answer the question 'What is the future of painting?' if it had been asked in the studio of Cimabue before Giotto turned up. Without actually answering the question, it's possible to speculate on the potential of the medium. To my mind, the first distinction to make is between the instrumental and the essential nature of the medium; by that I mean, between the purposes to which the medium can be put as a tool -- the computations that can be made with it, its mere utility -- and the possibilities of the medium as a medium for thinking and imagining in. So to continue the art example, the art of painting is itself the medium, and the introduction of, say, oil paints into Italy in the beginning of the 15th century, while it was a huge technical advance that allowed greater expressiveness, experimentation and delicacy -- and lead to some genres of painting that were not practical before with tempera -- it didn't represent the birth of a new field as such. The essential advance happened arguably centuries earlier in the art of Nicolo Pisano in sculpture and Giotto in painting in the awareness of the possibilities of space and form, and in the reabsorption of the Greek notions of studied rational observation of nature. Flatness in painting -- when it isn't an aesthetic choice but a miserable inability -- is also a kind of flatness, a weakness, a feebleness -- a sub-realism -- from a mental point of view. Giotto's paintings have many masterly qualities but perhaps the paradigmatic significance was his tremendous assertion of volume. Volume represented not just solidity, or merely an advance in making something look three-dimensional -- it literally advanced the art of painting by a power -- it showed that it was possible to think of forms in the round, to be aware of their sides, even of the backs of figures, while simultaneously depicting them from a single viewpoint. Giotto's achievement also demonstrates that this sense of volume -- while of course it exists in potential in everybody -- had to be first imagined by him and brought into existence by sheer force of will. To my mind it also suggests that things like the sense of volume can actually be regarded as 'senses' of a kind -- 'virtual senses', if you like, willed into existence by the mind -- and I think this is literally true if you think about a sense as not merely a sense organ but a cognitive process for which neuronal machinery exists in the brain, which we call cortexes. So what is the relevance of this to the future of computing? My point above is that although instrumental advances are powerful and important they are fundamentally incremental, and that paradigm shifts only occur when essential advances are made -- and essential advances are first intuited, imagined, and then willed into existence -- and function like 'virtual senses' in the sense that they both perceive sense data as well as actively organise data into new concepts. This brings us back to the question of computing as a medium in the instrumental and essential sense, and the general question of what effect do instruments and tools have on the ability to conceptualise. What medium does computing represent? Oil paints and brushes are the instruments of painting -- arguably a flat surface is the essential medium, as it is the essential difference between painting and sculpture. Computers can of course be used as tools to create in these media -- digital paint programs, 3D modelling software, etc., are instrumental equivalents -- but these are extensions of existing tools, and arguably less artistically efficient than traditional media (paints, violins, chisels, etc). Of course, computers can digitally manipulate images, sounds, words, etc., in ways that are cumbersome or practically impossible traditionally and you can argue that this certainly opens up new avenues of expression -- but not necessarily new realms of expression. I think Dr. Kay has pointed out that one thing that a computer can do uniquely that is more than an extension, refinement, or virtualisation of what traditional tools currently do is simulation -- the ability to project interactive information spaces, to run models through simulations, to carry out virtual experimentation. And it's arguable that the greatest enabler of experimentation in this space is not so much predefined software so much as computer languages, which provide an interactive syntax for thinking in that medium. Regards, Iian On 15 July 2012 05:36, Ivan Zhao wrote: > 45 years after Engelbart's demo, we have a read-only web and Microsoft > Word 2011, a gulf between "users" and "programmers" that can't be
Re: [fonc] Historical lessons to escape the current sorry state of personal computing?
Hi Ivan, I don't mean to imply that the Eighties was necessarily a Golden Age of home-brewed programming, or that it even instilled the best programming practises -- i.e., BASIC -- but I think an argument can be made that programming literacy -- even bad literacy -- was much more general at that time. I'm not saying the literacy was higher or better -- clearly modern languages and paradigms are more powerful and expressive than BASIC and 6502 machine code -- but it's telling to see how much computer code was actually published for general consumption in IT magazines and in children's books. Even though many programs were probably printed because it was cheaper than distributing cassettes and disks, there were still plenty of explicative articles on programming practises, tips, tricks, etc. Perhaps this only had to do with software pricing and distribution channels for a given audience -- say, kids, teens, etc. -- but the net result must surely have been some interest and enthusiasm for being a software creator rather than just a consumer. I have a friend who is not in IT, who hasn't touched an 8-bit computer in 20 years, who still remembers fondly the UK-published Usborne series of kids books on BASIC programming -- and remembers in detail. These books and this culture made an impact on him on some level. Although there are plenty of blogs and forums on programming out there, it's really sad that there isn't some mass medium for programming literacy -- and I suspect that a big part of it is that, despite its many documented flaws, BASIC at least had a small and graspable vocabulary that didn't require any header files, libraries, drivers, compilers, IDEs, or profiling tools. There is an enormous amount of software bureaucracy a budding programmer has to churn through these days before a 'Hello World' application -- and much more aggravation before producing usable and fun software. With all of these impediments, it's little wonder so many computer users -- and perhaps even programmers -- are consumers of the software and libraries of other people. If you don't have a real pressing need to 'roll your own' how can you possibly experience the incentive to design a better wheel -- or a magnetic levitation railway? ;-) Regards, Iian On 15 July 2012 13:58, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Sun, 15 Jul 2012, Iian Neill wrote: > > I share your sentiment, even to the point of longing for home'puter with > Logo in ROM. But I don't share all of your views. As I had been able to > witness "80-ties home'puter craze" (and take part in it), my experience > from this time makes me guess that programming was not all the rage - but > gaming was. So, it was about consumption from the beginning of commercial > home'puter (i.e., the days of ZX81 and Spectrum - perhaps it was different > in the days of Altair). Only some percentage of us teens was interested in > programming. Of those, majority ended adventure after not very long - > there was not magic for them, or maybe they didn't know what to do with a > computer once they learned how to make simple programs. > > Obviously, Basic didn't help much with expressing more complicated ideas, > but frankly, I doubt any other language would change this. Well, natural > language, maybe :-) . And even then, there would have been a lot of > dissapointment, simply because so many people have so much problems with > spelling their minds precisely (not to forget about making minds first, > before they are ready for spelling). > > My guess is, this is about genetics. Your guesses and mileage may vary. I > used to believe everybody can learn to program but I don't anymore. Even > if this is only about upbringing (I doubt, but maybe), the main point is, > where there is no need, there is no will either. And without will, no > persistence, so learning slows and stops. > > Oh, I mean, yes, everybody can learn to program, but how many have any > kind of their own ideas for their own programs? Of all Lego (ab)users, how > many build their own constructs while the rest is content with copying > stuff? Of all literate humans, how many have something interesting to say, > worthy of saving on a piece of paper? > > I think these are many facets of the same thing. I am unwilling to name > the thing yet, afraid this would be like nailing bird alive to the wall. > Premature optimisation - other birds, on seeing such thing, fly away. I'd > rather wait and see, maybe I can spot more birds in a room. And have a > nailing gun. > > :-) > > BTW, there are many more affordable computers nowadays. Some of those, > called cell phones, win chess tournaments from time to time. There is > really nothing standing in the way of individual who would want to build
Re: [fonc] Historical lessons to escape the current sorry state of personal computing?
Ivan, I have some hope for projects like the Raspberry Pi computer, which aims to replicate the 'homebrew' computing experience of the BBC Micro in Britain in the 1980s. Of course, hardware is only part of the equation -- even versatile hardware that encourages electronic tinkering -- and the languages and software that are bundled with the Pi will be key. Education is ultimately the answer, but what kind of education? Our computer science education is itself a product of our preconceptions of the field of computing, and to some degree fails to bridge the divide between the highly skilled technocratic elite and the personal computer consumer. The history of home computing in the Eighties shows the power of cheap hardware and practically 'bare metal' systems that are conceptually graspable. And I suspect the fact that BASIC was an interpreted language had a lot to do with fostering experimentation & play. Imagine if some variant of Logo had been built in, that allowed access to the machine code subroutines in the way BASIC did... Regards, Iian Sent from my iPhone On 15/07/2012, at 7:41 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Ivan Zhao wrote: >> 45 years after Engelbart's demo, we have a read-only web and Microsoft Word >> 2011, a gulf between "users" and "programmers" that can't be wider, and the >> scariest part is that most people have been indoctrinated long enough to >> realize there could be alternatives. >> >> Naturally, this is just history repeating itself (a la pre-Gutenberg >> scribes, Victorian plumbers). But my question is, what can we learn from >> these historical precedences, in order to to consciously to design our >> escape path. A revolution? An evolution? An education? > > HyperCard meets the web + P2P? > > -- > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. > In practice, there is. Yogi Berra > > ___ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc ___ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
