I don't see the point of this article. The analogies presented are only true to a very vague extent. It needlessly jargon-ifies simple concepts. It reminds me o

I don't see the point of this article. The analogies presented are only true to a very vague extent. It needlessly jargon-ifies simple concepts. It reminds me of Feynman's criticism of too much jargon being used to teach math [1]: >> Pure mathematics is just such an abstraction from the real world, and pure mathematics does have a special precise language for dealing with its own special and technical subjects. But this precise language is not precise in any sense if you deal with real objects of the world, and it is only pedantic and quite confusing to use it unless there are some special subtleties which have to be carefully distinguished. It also overstates the importance of projective geometry. It is a dubious claim that Mughal-era artists didn't understand 3D perspective. A culture capable of building the Taj Mahal didn't understand perspectives and basic geometry? You really don't need advanced math to get perspective right. It can be easily learned from practicing art. In fact, often the lack of a consistent perspective is deliberate and artistic. Realism is only one approach to art. [1] http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/2362/1/feynman.pdf http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/2362/1/feynman.pdf