It's hard to watch and not be consumed by envy of his tools. So the challenge is scaling that desire down to my capabilities.
So, can I create a task list which feels aligned with, (at my scale) the advantages he demonstrated. For me it comes back to hooking events. The stuff he demo'd looked like frameworks of event hooks, the keyboard and mouse watched carefully informing a layer of interpretation which drove graphics, and fed back to the text. We have some of that in the rendering family of tools. There is room for improvement in Leo in the event tracking scaffold. As far as the pure Wow factor, and the danger of my world looking dreary after a glimpse of such beauty, I'm reminded of a friends opinion on the similarity of pornography and the Cosby show: each is a fantasy tending to promote dissatisfaction with reality. On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Edward K. Ream <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 20, 2:29 pm, Kent Tenney <[email protected]> wrote: >> http://flowingdata.com/2012/02/20/live-coding-and-inventing-on-princi... >> >> I found this quite amazing, a glimpse at the future of programming >> environments, >> and a lovely description of a good way to live. > > Many thanks for this link. I enjoyed the video immensely. It's quite > a "whack on the side of the head". > > Here are my reactions. > > First, the critical bits, just to show that I've slept on the video > and haven't fallen completely under his spell :-) Obviously, > motivation and drive are important, but adding a moral (or moralistic) > dimension to the motivation is debatable. Perhaps pain motivates him > more than pleasure, but I doubt it. Adding Richard Stallman to the > list of "crusaders" could be called truth in advertising, I'll give > him that. > > But enough of the critical bits. This is a great demo of a truly > important idea. I would put it this way--we have just begun to > explore what computers can do for us. Personal computers today are > supercomputers, and for the most part these supercomputers are simply > waiting for our keystrokes. The demo challenges us (designers) to do > more, much more, with the available computing power. > > The principle of instant feedback for actions is truly important. > That's all there is to it. > > For many years I have been saying that I am not looking for anything > better than Python. Now I can't say that! Instantly, I am completely > dissatisfied with my programming tools! > > I loved his throw-away comment about unit tests. It shows how feeble > they really are. > > As I think about the implications of Bret Victor's work, I am struck > by how easy it would be to make excuses for why our tools are not as > spectacular as his. You can probably think of several, right off the > top of your head. > > But that would be a huge mistake. Instead, we must follow the > evidence, and admit that our present tools really suck :-) For > example, I have spent a week cleaning Leo, and at no time did I begin > to get any kind of instant feedback that the cleanup was making a > difference. Yes, eventually the outline became simpler, and so did > some of the code within it, but at all times I was "playing designer" > to paraphrase Bret. > > The danger of making excuses is that it allows us to ignore the > opportunities. That would be truly stupid. And that is what is > likely to happen for most people, myself included. We'll get excited, > and then (quickly or not) go right back to our old ways of doing > things. If you disagree, think of how many excuses you have already > made for our present tools, including Leo. > > I loved the programming demo. In fact, the right side of the demo is > an "instant debugger". > > Could we do that in Leo? I think we could. The "instant debugger" > could be a rendering of the body text! It wouldn't be that hard: do > nothing unless the body text is syntactically correct, which is most > of the time while we are typing. But if it is correct, the debugger > will evaluate the body pane and show the results. > > But this is just the tip of the opportunity iceberg. We could make > excuses, saying that Bret's principle is compelling only for toy > demos, but instead, let us consider how we could scale up his ideas to > larger and larger domains. > > It seems to me that he is calling forth the creation of what I will > call "deep structure". Leo was born because I don't consider computer > programs to be merely a collection of random text. My mentor, Bob > Fitzwater, said that design happens in a different space, different > from the world of bits (or words). But our tools don't exist in that > world, they treat programs *and* their design as nothing but text. > > This deep structure would, in some sense, *be* the real program. > Leo's outlines are *not*, by themselves, this deep structure--they are > only an explicit structure imposed on text. In the present > programming world (excepting Bret's), there is simply no way to > manipulate anything other than program text. This leads to the edit/ > test cycle, which is hugely different from the world of immediate > feedback. > > Questions immediately arise: What would immediate feedback in other > domains look like? On what kind of deep structures would it operate? > How can we use computers to validate our programs and designs > automatically and instantly? > > Edward > > P.S. If I would choose a "moral" imperative that speaks to me it > would be this: we humans have got to do a better job at honoring > evidence. We are simply not at liberty to ignore inconvenient facts. > And yes, there truly are facts in this world. This has revolutionary > implications, and the world is in full backlash mode at present, with > tragic consequences. > > To see if you understand the power of evidence, answer the question, > "What is the most revolutionary science?" Imo, there is one, and only > one, correct answer. This is not a trick question. You either know > the answer or you don't. If you don't know the answer, you are > ignorant, in a deep sense, of the modern world. In this sense, you > might as well be living 300 years ago. > > EKR > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
