Re: Wolfram Language versus org mode literate

[Tom Slee <slee.tom@gmail.com>]

[-- 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 --]