I have a lot of respect for the FSF. I think GPL v2 is probably the best license out there. I certainly don't think Android is an unalloyed good the way ariadnavigo.xyz/posts/what-the does. And yet, this makes me incredibly sad:

news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1

The whole goal of GNU was to combat proprietary software. Deliberately over-engineering software just to distinguish itself from another that also has a permissive license (BSD), how is this making the world better?

@akkartik re "I often find it challenging even to figure out where to ask. Going from a program to its package, dealing with interactions between packages, etc. All of which goes back to simplicity as a core goal."

Programs should strive to have a beginning and end—or at least a well-understood beginning—and for the author to care as much about human reader as the machine.

@akkartik I've come to realize that, as intrinsic as it is in everything exactly like Nelson says it is, uncontrolled hypertextuality is the enemy.

Consider the plot of a book or a movie. Plenty exist that use non-linear storytelling or jump into and out of scenes happening in parallel. Yet we still manage to package them up into consumables.

The act of "linearizing" is an art, but it's doable. It should not be overlooked.

@akkartik the biggest problem, as I see it, is that by the time we get to the point where we're competent to both write programs and notice that we should be striving for this thing, our minds are poisoned by the influence "industrial" software development. Your analysis about Knuth's LP mistakes are extremely salient.

How do we keep from backsliding into, "Some #includes for our program -- don't mind these"?

@akkartik there's a restatement of the problem in the Glen Chiacchieri episode of the Future of Coding podcast. Choice quote (around 1:45:50):

"Code is open source, but who cares? Nobody can understand it."

https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/026.html

@colby Funny you (Adam, really) brought up Smalltalk. I've been poking around recently with Glamorous Toolkit, trying to figure out if I should focus there instead of my github.com/akkartik/mu. Because my goal is exactly what's stated in that blog post draft: always ship sources with any software, and make it easy to rebuild sources with a single click. Even if nobody can immediately understand it, push-button releases will massively improve things and lay the foundations for more.

@akkartik from Future of Coding #3:

> as I was just telling you, I spent the last, like... I spent 5 hours over the last two days[...] trying to install software to get something to run. And it's just ridiculous to have to spend hours and hours. If you want to get Xcode to run, it takes— first of all you need a Mac, which is crazy, and then second of all it takes, depending on your internet connection, it could take you a whole day just to get up and running. Why isn't it `xcode.com/create`?

@colby On the flip side, I can't even with JavaScript.

I'm still thinking about this thread. I wrote a long post on the FoC Slack about it. Right now I'm leaning towards hacking on the Lua interpreter to build in an editing environment.

Follow

@colby I spent the last 3 or so years trying to escape C, and it's just too hard. But having given up on that, I don't want to rebound too far in the other direction. Parsimony still has value even if I don't care about it quite as much. Lua feels the most parsimonious of the options. Best performance and features for lowest outlay of C code, no other libraries, and no other notations. The target stack is now C -> Lua+Linux -> some expression of triplescripts/end user programming principles.

· · Web · 0 · 0 · 0
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Merveilles

Revel in the marvels of the universe. We are a collective of forward-thinking individuals who strive to better ourselves and our surroundings through constant creation. We express ourselves through music, art, games, and writing. We also put great value in play. A warm welcome to any like-minded people who feel these ideals resonate with them.