At 17:01 Uhr -0800 01.01.2008, James McCartney wrote:
>Conal Elliot came to Apple several weeks ago and gave a talk about
>"tangible values". It was interesting. I think there is a complexity
>limit for that approach.
from my experience, I agree, but I am not sure. Why do you think this is so?
At 15:49 Uhr +0100 03.01.2008, douglas edric stanley wrote:
[...]
>
>All that said, I love to code and I love to look at it. I think it's
>quite amazing. I'm also fascinated with this historical hack of
>associating the physical keyboard array with the char * array with
>the programming stack. But I cannot for the life of me see how
>people can keep coding like this, i.e. from the perspective of the
>history of human representations.
Well, maybe for the same reason they stopped using an abacus for
everything and developed symbolic algebra?
>
>There is nothing moral in these arguments. I'm not saying code is
>ugly in the sense that code is "bad". I'm just saying that it's
>historically curious, and in my opinion will transform into
>something more historically profound. Hence knitting, music,
>mosaics, who-knows...
>
>> I don't see why this linearity leads to
>>ugliness.
>
[...]
>I think it's an important question to ask, even if we never get past
>it: was historically tying linear text-string-of-perls the best way
>to represent computation?
there is nothing inherently linear about text, just as there is
nothing non-interactive about a book. You can read in what ever way
you like.
--
.
Received on Thu Jan 03 2008 - 16:50:39 GMT