Wolfram Language versus org mode literate

Wolfram Language versus org mode literate

[Lawrence Bottorff]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2994 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3309 bytes --]

Re: Wolfram Language versus org mode literate

[Tom Slee]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3270 bytes --]

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" <borgauf@gmail.com> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3785 bytes --]

Re: Wolfram Language versus org mode literate

[Grant Rettke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3541 bytes --]

Great post; agreed.


On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Lawrence Bottorff <borgauf@gmail.com>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
>



-- 
Grant Rettke | ACM, AMA, COG, IEEE
gcr@wisdomandwonder.com | http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/
“Wisdom begins in wonder.” --Socrates
((λ (x) (x x)) (λ (x) (x x)))
“Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop
taking it seriously.” --Thompson

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4244 bytes --]