4 ms·

I also agree... and Gerald Sussman also agree with: "programs should be done for humans to understand, and incidentally for computers to execute." and also Kn

I also agree... and Gerald Sussman also agree with: "programs should be done for humans to understand, and incidentally for computers to execute." and also Knuth agreed, and that is why he invented literate programming. But why literate programming isn't more popular is beyond me.

amelius 6y ago
> "programs should be done for humans to understand, and incidentally for computers to execute." And shareholders to make money.
brlewis 6y ago
> why literate programming isn't more popular is beyond me I saw this topic brought up in a video I was watching yesterday https://youtu.be/SzA2YODtgK4?t=1519 https://youtu.be/SzA2YODtgK4?t=1519 There are 2 reasons: 1. Programmers and code review tools are not very good at making sure comments and documentation are updated when code is. 2. People see literate programming as primarily for documentation-focused or teaching purposes. The statistics in the article we're commenting on suggest that more software systems should be documentation/teaching focused, since the "learning the system" phase is where most of the time goes.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I will admit that I am in group 2. I always saw it as something exclusively used for teaching. I have a project that I basically abandoned because of a lack of free time and there is little hope that my friend will understand the code base without my help. If literate programming can help with that project I'll be sold on it.
- vanderZwan 6y ago
  > 2. People see literate programming as primarily for documentation-focused or teaching purposes. I agree. Specifically, it's for teaching my future forgetful self what the hell this bit of code is supposed to do. Especially if waterbed theory appears to apply and it's inherently a juggling act of interlocked complex systems.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Does that help you understand the code in front of you? Because the root issue is understanding the whole system, not individual codes.
bmitc 6y ago
Do you have a reference for where Sussman said or wrote that? I just want to know where it is so I can refer to it.
- asdftemp 6y ago
  https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/full-text/sicp/book/node3.html https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/full-text/...
tudorgirba 6y ago
>But why literate programming isn't more popular is beyond me. One issue with literate programming is that it advertised a single narrative for code. Only code is data, and there are always many narratives about data. This change might look cosmetic, but it is actually fundamental. In Glamorous Toolkit, beside having multiple views, we also embedded an interactive notebook right in the development environment and through it we tell interactive stories about the inside the system.

amelius 6y ago

> "programs should be done for humans to understand, and incidentally for computers to execute." And shareholders to make money.

brlewis 6y ago

> why literate programming isn't more popular is beyond me I saw this topic brought up in a video I was watching yesterday https://youtu.be/SzA2YODtgK4?t=1519 https://youtu.be/SzA2YODtgK4?t=1519 There are 2 reasons: 1. Programmers and code review tools are not very good at making sure comments and documentation are updated when code is. 2. People see literate programming as primarily for documentation-focused or teaching purposes. The statistics in the article we're commenting on suggest that more software systems should be documentation/teaching focused, since the "learning the system" phase is where most of the time goes.

imtringued 6y ago
I will admit that I am in group 2. I always saw it as something exclusively used for teaching. I have a project that I basically abandoned because of a lack of free time and there is little hope that my friend will understand the code base without my help. If literate programming can help with that project I'll be sold on it.
vanderZwan 6y ago
> 2. People see literate programming as primarily for documentation-focused or teaching purposes. I agree. Specifically, it's for teaching my future forgetful self what the hell this bit of code is supposed to do. Especially if waterbed theory appears to apply and it's inherently a juggling act of interlocked complex systems.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Does that help you understand the code in front of you? Because the root issue is understanding the whole system, not individual codes.

bmitc 6y ago

Do you have a reference for where Sussman said or wrote that? I just want to know where it is so I can refer to it.

asdftemp 6y ago
https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/full-text/sicp/book/node3.html https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/full-text/...

tudorgirba 6y ago

>But why literate programming isn't more popular is beyond me. One issue with literate programming is that it advertised a single narrative for code. Only code is data, and there are always many narratives about data. This change might look cosmetic, but it is actually fundamental. In Glamorous Toolkit, beside having multiple views, we also embedded an interactive notebook right in the development environment and through it we tell interactive stories about the inside the system.