3 ms·

Well, that's the way it often is. But I hesitate to agree that it's the way it should be. I try not to shy away from implementation myself, and I think there's

Well, that's the way it often is. But I hesitate to agree that it's the way it should be. I try not to shy away from implementation myself, and I think there's a lot of benefit to exposing oneself to details. To quote PG: "In principle you could make any mark in any medium; in practice the medium steers you. And if you're no longer doing the work yourself, you stop learning from this." I speak for myself, but this true almost everywhere. Small changes in the resistance of medium, and in the convenience of doing one thing or another, often lead to drastic differences in the sort of things people create. I heard that someone actually managed to play 'Flight of the Bumblebee' on Trombone. I'm not sure I can impress upon you how difficult that sounds -- there are like 5 notes per second, each requiring precise intonation, and it never lets up long enough for the poor soul playing it to breath. Apparently, it can be done. But I'm almost certain nothing of the sort would have been composed on it. Programs are often the same way. Sometimes, the idea doesn't occur to you until you understand how to implement it. Or, as the case may be, until you actually implement it. I read that Scheme was in part an attempt to implement an Actor model. When they implemented lexical closures and actors, they discovered that the implementations were the same!

amichail 19y ago
If the medium steers you, then that's not a good thing and you need to fix the situation. For example, if writing by pen tends to force you to write a novel in a particular way that is undesirable, then fix the situation (e.g., use a word processor). As a creative individual, you should be the one calling the shots.
- DaniFong 19y ago
  Sometimes, while 'creating', it's less like trying to cast my visions onto some medium and more like an exploration. Sometimes it's more fruitful just to let myself be guided by my impulses, my abilities, and the medium. I don't know if it works for everyone, but it works for me. One might worry that I'm being commanded by the medium, but what I make seems to be original, anyway. I actually prefer writing by pen. It's more fluid. And since things can't be easily rewritten, you give a bit of thought before you commit something, and are always driven forward. Knuth et al. notes, in an article on technical writing (http://tex.loria.fr/typographie/mathwriting.pdf http://tex.loria.fr/typographie/mathwriting.pdf): "Towards the end of the editing process you will need to ensure that you don't have a page break in the middle of a displayed formula. Often you'll simply have to think up something else to say to fill up the page, thus pushing the displayed formula entirely onto the next page. Try to think of this as a stimulus to research!" A pen sometimes functions in the same way. And if I find it's results undesirable, then I'll try not to think of it as a problem to fix, and rather as looking for a new medium to explore.
  - amichail 19y ago
    While limitations of the medium may help you be more creative, it doesn't mean that the same holds for me or most other people for that matter. If, for example, you can find a scientific study that demonstrates that people are more creative with a pen than a word processor, then I would be interested. For me, one should strive for ideas that transcend the particulars of existing mediums. Such ideas are more likely to be influential in the long term.

amichail 19y ago

If the medium steers you, then that's not a good thing and you need to fix the situation. For example, if writing by pen tends to force you to write a novel in a particular way that is undesirable, then fix the situation (e.g., use a word processor). As a creative individual, you should be the one calling the shots.

DaniFong 19y ago
Sometimes, while 'creating', it's less like trying to cast my visions onto some medium and more like an exploration. Sometimes it's more fruitful just to let myself be guided by my impulses, my abilities, and the medium. I don't know if it works for everyone, but it works for me. One might worry that I'm being commanded by the medium, but what I make seems to be original, anyway. I actually prefer writing by pen. It's more fluid. And since things can't be easily rewritten, you give a bit of thought before you commit something, and are always driven forward. Knuth et al. notes, in an article on technical writing (http://tex.loria.fr/typographie/mathwriting.pdf http://tex.loria.fr/typographie/mathwriting.pdf): "Towards the end of the editing process you will need to ensure that you don't have a page break in the middle of a displayed formula. Often you'll simply have to think up something else to say to fill up the page, thus pushing the displayed formula entirely onto the next page. Try to think of this as a stimulus to research!" A pen sometimes functions in the same way. And if I find it's results undesirable, then I'll try not to think of it as a problem to fix, and rather as looking for a new medium to explore.
- amichail 19y ago
  While limitations of the medium may help you be more creative, it doesn't mean that the same holds for me or most other people for that matter. If, for example, you can find a scientific study that demonstrates that people are more creative with a pen than a word processor, then I would be interested. For me, one should strive for ideas that transcend the particulars of existing mediums. Such ideas are more likely to be influential in the long term.