From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Slee Subject: Re: Wolfram Language versus org mode literate Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:29:59 -0500 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c2e1901f9c0104f37ba07b Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49930) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJSCA-0004qf-8H for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJSC8-0003eF-Rr for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:02 -0500 Received: from mail-oa0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c02::230]:47297) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WJSC8-0003e8-LL for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:30:00 -0500 Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m1so4419823oag.35 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:29:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Lawrence Bottorff Cc: emacs-orgmode --001a11c2e1901f9c0104f37ba07b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I don't know that I agree with all of this, but I'm definitely glad I read it. Thanks for posting. Tom On 2014-02-28 12:53 PM, "Lawrence Bottorff" wrote: > Back when I was younger (half an hour ago?) I would have been wowed by > this: http://youtu.be/_P9HqHVPeik which is Stephen Wolfram's intro into > his new Wolfram language. But what puts me (way) off is -- once again -- > I'm supposedly doing all these great things, but not with any sort of > accounting for what's being done. Kein Protokoll. No Story. > > The nature of functional programming is to build, Russian doll-style, > functions that use functions that use functions etc. But without something > like a literate style, your efforts are quickly lost in the details. You do > stuff -- and unless you have a phenomenal memory, you've simply dug a nice, > deep tunnel that is, at the same time, collapsing behind you. *You* may > know what you've done, but how to make others aware and get them involved? > All they see is some collapsed tunnel with a sales pitch about how you > should go re-dig that very same tunnel. > > Typically, with "software projects" you have hierarchical teams that plan > what the "project" is and what it will do and who will do what. Again, it's > just the tunneling with a bit less collapsing going on behind the actual > shoveling. So far, software is all about drilling into the problem, writing > a bunch of code, then flogging a group of users on how to use it. No Story. > Just tunneling, with varying degrees of tunnel passageway, depending on how > much effort is put into shoveling by coders and their users. But this is a > hopeless model that cannot scale. > > How many billions of lines of code are out there . . . basically lost to > everyone -- even the creator? Libraries, modules? Sure, and yet the whole > effort at Wolfram seems only to be taking librarian duties to the next > level. But still, where's The Story? Coding, solving problems needs a Story > to go along with it. I don't think computing will advance until The Story > is woven into the actual coding. Yes, functional is probably a step up from > OO, (Smalltalkers don't agree), but it still doesn't tell a Story. It's > just more powerful tunneling equipment. > > Humanity is The Big Story, which, in turn, is broken down into very many > sub-Stories. We're Story-oriented. Code so far is not. Code is like > networks of tunnels where, for all intents and purposes, most of the > tunneling has already collapsed, the tunnel paths mostly unknowable. What > makes me so excited about org mode is that it's the first time I've seen > literate programming move a tick up into the realm of actually creating a > tellable Story. > > At some point in the future, you will tell a Story. The Story may be how > you created an inventory system, or tracked moose in the wild. Others -- > human or machine -- on hearing your Story may then want to weave it into > their Stories. Now, what I see Wolfram doing is just making The Ultimate > Library, one with enough AI to obviate lots of library browsing. But > there's still no Story. org mode, however, has the rudiments of being able > to finally tell Stories. Ein schoenes Protokoll! Amen! > > Lawrence Bottorff > North Shore MN > --001a11c2e1901f9c0104f37ba07b Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I don't know that I agree with all of this,=A0 but I'= ;m definitely=A0 glad I read it. Thanks for posting.

Tom

On 2014-02-28 12:53 PM, "Lawrence Bottorff&= quot; <borgauf@gmail.com> wr= ote:
Back when I was younger (half an hour ago?) I would have b= een wowed by this:=A0http://youtu.be/_P9HqHVPeik which is Stephen Wolfram's intro in= to his new Wolfram language. But what puts me (way) off is -- once again --= I'm supposedly doing all these great things, but not with any sort of = accounting for what's being done. Kein Protokoll. No Story.

The nature of functional programming is to build, Russian do= ll-style, functions that use functions that use functions etc. But without = something like a literate style, your efforts are quickly lost in the detai= ls. You do stuff -- and unless you have a phenomenal memory, you've sim= ply dug a nice, deep tunnel that is, at the same time, collapsing behind yo= u. You may know what you've done, but how to make others aware a= nd get them involved? All they see is some collapsed tunnel with a sales pi= tch about how you should go re-dig that very same tunnel.

Typically, with "software projects" you have = hierarchical teams that plan what the "project" is and what it wi= ll do and who will do what. Again, it's just the tunneling with a bit l= ess collapsing going on behind the actual shoveling. So far, software is al= l about drilling into the problem, writing a bunch of code, then flogging a= group of users on how to use it. No Story. Just tunneling, with varying de= grees of tunnel passageway, depending on how much effort is put into shovel= ing by coders and their users. But this is a hopeless model that cannot sca= le.

How many billions of lines of code are out there . . . = basically lost to everyone -- even the creator? Libraries, modules? Sure, a= nd yet the whole effort at Wolfram seems only to be taking librarian duties= to the next level. But still, where's The Story? Coding, solving probl= ems needs a Story to go along with it. I don't think computing will adv= ance until The Story is woven into the actual coding. Yes, functional is pr= obably a step up from OO, (Smalltalkers don't agree), but it still does= n't tell a Story. It's just more powerful tunneling equipment.

Humanity is The Big Story, which, in turn, is broken do= wn into very many sub-Stories. We're Story-oriented. Code so far is not= . Code is like networks of tunnels where, for all intents and purposes, mos= t of the tunneling has already collapsed, the tunnel paths mostly unknowabl= e. What makes me so excited about org mode is that it's the first time = I've seen literate programming move a tick up into the realm of actuall= y creating a tellable Story.

At some point in the future, you will tell a Story. The= Story may be how you created an inventory system, or tracked moose in the = wild. Others -- human or machine -- on hearing your Story may then want to = weave it into their Stories. Now, what I see Wolfram doing is just making T= he Ultimate Library, one with enough AI to obviate lots of library browsing= . But there's still no Story. org mode, however, has the rudiments of b= eing able to finally tell Stories. Ein schoenes Protokoll! Amen!

Lawrence Bottorff
North Shore MN
--001a11c2e1901f9c0104f37ba07b--