On Wed Nov 9 10:55:15 2011, Edward K. Ream wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas
The moment you want to create is the moment that you
need to deal with details of creation and is also the moment you will need
to deal with documentation, that's why the idea of Smalltalk about the
system being the curricula or Knuth's about code being the document are so
powerful.
True, but only partially so. Leo is proof, imo, that there is
something much better than literate programming. And I continue to
insist that the need for complex documentation is a sign of design
weakness, no matter whether it is a consumer-level design or a
technical design.
For me the point is that you can be as detailed as you want to be.
That's not a sign of design weakness in design but about flexibility on
details. Choosing the proper level of details you want to deal with
should be also a user choice. As Douglas Hofstadter, said we could be
able to explain a war talking about the movement of particles but may
be that level of detail is not important and some social level
(religious, economical, etc) is the proper level of explanation. That's
doesn't mean that having the particle level of explanation is not
important also for some other things. Smalltalk trying to create a
discourse about computing that "goes from cooper to the user" uses
several metaphors in building it. Leo has the potential to create a
similar discourse from the point of view of "everything is a file"
mantra (Smalltalk chosen "everything is an object" mantra). For me the
simplicity is on the basic constructs, but the way that they could be
combined to express diversity should be almost infinite, as happens
with natural language.
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.
