[CM] slippery chicken release

David Lindes user-clm-cmdist at daveltd.com
Sun May 27 04:00:46 PDT 2012

Hi all (I'm relatively new here),

Hmm, something tells me that this conversation might benefit from an
injection of some borrowed ideas.  Is it wrong to point people to a video?
 :)  In case not, here's this:

https://vimeo.com/36579366 (Bret Victor - "Inventing on Principle", in case
you may already have seen it).

In short, my own personal take (which I think is more-or-less aligned with
Mr. Victor's, at least in ways, though probably not completely) on this
topic goes something like this:

(1) Describing things textually (in "words", or at least in (possibly
computer) language) has the benefit of making it possible to represent
abstract concepts in concise and concrete ways, that may create a lot of
complexity out of a simple (or at least simply expressed) idea.

(2) Having interactive graphical interfaces allows for exploration of *new*
ideas in a way that's difficult or impossible when you have to express a
complete thought in "words".

So, if you know what you want to say, you want text.  If you're trying to
figure out what's possible to say, you might need (or at least benefit
from) something more graphical and/or more interactive.

And of course, there's no reason that both interfaces need be developed by
the same person...  though having a collaborative development situation
could prove useful... though I've heard rumors that that's not so popular
in the lisp world?

Just some thoughts...


- David

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM, René Bastian <rbastian at free.fr> wrote:

> Le Sat, 26 May 2012 15:35:05 -0700,
> Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU> a écrit :
> > On 05/26/2012 03:02 AM, Michael Edwards wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Count me in the minority as well!
> +1000
> >
> > Perhaps most current users have _never_ been exposed to programming
> > with "text", and have only interacted with computers through a mouse
> > and graphical interfaces. I believe text interaction is faster but it
> > might be just a bias because my brain has never been "programmed"
> > under the visual programming paradigm.
> >
> > On the other hand I think most (all?) programming and software
> > development in the computer world happens in the text domain.
> <french>
> ... et il ne faut pas confondre l'explication de la chose
> - qui peut utiliser des graphiques - avec la chose.
> <latin> In fine </latin> la chose doit être comprise et intériorisée
> pour être utilisée efficacement - et là, le texte reste la seule aide
> efficace
> </french>
> <german>
> ... und man soll nicht die Sache mit seiner Erklärung verwechseln.
> Die Erklärung kann, wenn nötig, graphische Unterlagen benutzen,
> aber, am Ende vom Lied, muss die Sache verstanden und intus
> sein und dann bleibt nur der Text als effizientes Werkzeug.
> </german>
> I think I am not able to translate to English.
> I saw incredible complex graphics of PureData, - but the resulting
> music was incredibly flat :)
> Instead of making graphic software, it would be more efficient to
> explain, explain, explain or translate Clisp to other langages.
> >
> > -- Fernando
> >
> --
> René Bastian
> www.pythoneon.org
> _______________________________________________
> Cmdist mailing list
> Cmdist at ccrma.stanford.edu
> http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/pipermail/cmdist/attachments/20120527/fb70066c/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Cmdist mailing list