Hi,
On 11/01/11 05:04, Edward K. Ream wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Kent Tenney<[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
2. How do we understand complex computer programs?
The other topic I think would benefit Leo is improved persistence.
We shall more forward on this, but imo persistence is *usually* more
of a convenience than a fundamental requirement for understanding.
The real question related to understanding is "persistence of what?"
Leo is what it is because outline structure is the fundamental thing
that persists. Everything else is secondary, by a very large margin.
Optimizing versioning capability is related to persistence.
Again, versioning may be added to Leo, but it is not, imo, the key to
understanding complex code or other data. Again, the question is,
"versioning of what?" Versioning of text has no chance, imo, of
creating a breakthrough in understanding.
Outline structure is the only thing that Leo supports that creates a
breakthrough in understanding (and power). A huge part of Leo is
simply devoted to translating back and forth between the outlined
(structured) world and the flat (text) world.
I'm with Keney on this one. I think that you understand the data in two
"dimensions": structure, where outlining is the key, and time, where
versioning, (with support to forking, merging, conflict management) is
the key. That's why I propose Leo having a minimal discourse of source
code management creating support to fossil. I'm using Fossil more and
more lately and I think that, if I find the proper context to do it, I
will teach fossil to Leo (from installing to using it).
The questions I am considering are:
1. Is there anything *else* (besides outline structure) that could
conceivably create a breakthrough in understanding in complex data?
2. Are there other ways of using outlines that could create a
breakthrough in understanding?
Flexible visualization of understanding, can create a breakthrough in
understanding. That's why a lot of people who find Leo, specially
non-programmers who want to understand/restructure their data, ask about
mind mapping. The solution is not to point them to mind mapping
software, but to understand that what they want is flexible
visualization inside Leo. Progressively the idea of Leo as a
deconstructor of textual interaction with the computer (and most of the
interaction is textual) is gaining wider visibility, but complementing
this with flexible visualization is a key for having a broader
deconstructor. The Moose Project, as a data and software analysis tool
emphasize the importance of flexible data visualization:
* http://www.themoosebook.org/book/introduction/nutshell
* http://www.themoosebook.org/book/introduction/history/2003-2007
* http://www.themoosebook.org/book/internals/mondrian
To quote the last link:
"""
Digital data has no physical shape. While this allows us to manipulate
easily great amounts of data, it poses a problem when it comes to
understanding this data and assessing its state. The lack of physical
shape renders useless our built-in skill of perceiving the world around
us through visual stimuli.
Visualization aims to solve this problem by offering a visual skin to
data. “A picture tells a thousand words” goes the old adage. And so it
does, but only if the picture is the right one.
"""
Cheers,
Offray
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
