The new job is good so far. Really cool technology, interesting problems to solve, good people, still small enough to be fun.
We converted Heather's cot into a bed today. She's currently asleep on the floor of her room. Of course.
Excellent application of MD5-breaking technology.
Further to my earlier desultory comments on zombies, a contrary view. Lanier's main point is, I think, originally due to Hilary Putnam, though quite possibly Jaron Lanier thought of it independently.
I've always had a soft spot for Knuth's "literate programming", but it seems that I'm in a tiny minority. I'm pleased to find that the practice of LP is not entirely dead; for instance, there's a little community of people doing it, apparently for fun, in a wiki at literateprograms.org. But I think the right way to bring wikis and LP together is to make each section be its own page. Perhaps (though I rather doubt it) worthwhile literate programs could then be created in the same sort of informal ways as wikis are. And wrecked in the same sort of informal ways, too.
"John", thanks very much.
(Note for anyone who happens to care: I have some reason to believe that the above comment really is from someone at LBO, although so far as I am able to tell there's no one of that name connected with the company. I have some guesses.)
The key quality of literate programming is that it allows the programmer to explain exactly what the program is doing in a way that non-programmers (or less expert programmers) can understand. So I think it has niches where it is the best solution.
For example, I once worked on a project to develop a computer simulation of some neurons in the brain of a newt. It was vital that the lead researcher could check my code for scientific accuracy, but he was not an expert programmer. My solution was to use literate programming. (This was back in 1993; I used FunnelWeb.)
I think it would also be great for projects like Clear Climate Code.
I agree that that's a nice feature of literate programming, but I don't think it's the "key quality"; that certainly isn't how Knuth appears to see it. (He uses LP even for programs that he expects never to be read by anyone but himself).
CCC looks like a very fine thing. I agree that literate programming might be a good fit for it.
Post a comment:
Gareth
It is a pleasure to have you on the team - glad you are pleased to be here.