4 ms·

> This was written in response to LionKimbro saying he wanted to get beyond text for programming. (Ie. TextFreeProgramming) [..] I'll go further and say that it

> This was written in response to LionKimbro saying he wanted to get beyond text for programming. (Ie. TextFreeProgramming) [..] I'll go further and say that it's denial of text-files [..] that ultimately killed SmallTalk. Had someone seen this clearly in 1980 [..] we might have seen a very different evolution of computing : a true synthesis of Smalltalk and Unix. Smalltalk could have become the graphical shell on top of Unix, providing it instantly with a sophisticated GUI This seems to rely on the assumption that Unix was the best approach for OSes one could do in 1980. Perhaps we should also think not just getting beyond text for programming but also beyond Unix as the lowest common denominator in thinking about OSes? (BTW "beyond text" doesn't mean "beyond symbols" since somehow you'd need to represent the program neither "beyond keyboard" - especially if you consider that chances are your keyboard already has a bunch of symbols like "@#$%^" that aren't really text, they just are some random symbols that someone at some point decades ago decided it'd be useful to be part of ASCII)

msla 5y ago
> especially if you consider that chances are your keyboard already has a bunch of symbols like "@#$%^" that aren't really text Of course they're text. What else could they possibly be? As for going beyond text, it becomes difficult to coordinate richer types of files between different groups, especially if every group is convinced that other groups are missing some vitally important functionality and, therefore, everyone will be convinced of the essential rightness of their cause given enough time.
- badsectoracula 5y ago
  > Of course they're text. What else could they possibly be? Symbols. > As for going beyond text, it becomes difficult to coordinate richer types of files between different groups Well, yeah, the reason why we focus on Unix as a lowest common denominator for OSes, text files as the best way to store code, etc isn't because they are objectively superior to everything else, but because they are things that were good enough and existed earlier enough to gain approval and have people learn and rely on them. But while this is a practical concern, that doesn't mean we can't think of alternatives. Perhaps with a stroke of luck or the right circumstances (e.g. some new type of platform) it could even catch on.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > > Of course they're text. What else could they possibly be? > Symbols. That would be a sensible response in the world where text and symbols were mutually exclusive, rather than the former being a subset of the latter.
    - pasquinelli 5y ago
      if text is a subset of symbols then there are symbols that aren't text. if you mean to say that symbols are a subset of text, then that is simply confusion.
- fao_ 5y ago
  Ok, when do you use the @ sign or # sign in text? Without referring to computers :)
  - zdragnar 5y ago
    Both predate computers as shorthand spellings of words and phrases. @ for example dates to 1500s Italy. # is often used to denote a number is an ordinal number, or as a substitution for the word pounds (weight, not currency).
    - fao_ 5y ago
      Right, and where are they used in modern text except to refer to computer-related concepts?
      - wolfgang42 5y ago
        Here’s a particularly egregious hypothetical from an invoice: > 100 #2 pencils @ 2¢ ea + 8%* tax = $2.16 (* - state & county)
      - zdragnar 5y ago
        Their wikipedia pages give several modern day usages, including those I listed and the sibling comment (@ meaning at the price of, # as shorthand for pounds, etc)
    - badsectoracula 5y ago
      As you see, these are symbols that can be replaced with a textual description of what they mean - being something like "macros" for text. So as i wrote, we are already using symbols that aren't text and we do enter some of them via dedicated keys on the keyboard. The main issue here is to see these symbols for what they are: an arbitrary set of symbols that we limit ourselves to because they are printed on the keycaps of the keyboards we have. But we don't have to only use symbols found on keycaps, we don't have to use keyboards that essentially inherit the same layout and most of the keys from centuries old typewriters, we don't have to limit ourselves to a handful of letters and symbols chosen decades ago for devices that were already primitive in 1980. The by far main reason we do all that isn't because the current system is better but because of what is essentially software peer pressure.
em-bee 5y ago
There's nothing that can't be represented by a good text file even a plain text file has a bunch of metadata that should actually be part of the file object itself and not rely on the storage medium where different systems have a different idea what metadata should be associated with the data. a plain byte-stream is the simplest, but also the most limited way to represent data. with text based systems i have the option of either loosing the metadata when i copy the bytestream, or i rely on crude methods like EXIF data on images which i can't change without breaking the ability to easily detect if the image itself is changed or not.
mpweiher 5y ago
> This seems to rely on the assumption that Unix was the best approach for OSes one could do in 1980 Why do you think that? > [think] beyond Unix as the lowest common denominator in thinking about OSes? If it's the lowest common denominator, then it's probably not the "best approach", but rather an adequate one?

msla 5y ago

> especially if you consider that chances are your keyboard already has a bunch of symbols like "@#$%^" that aren't really text Of course they're text. What else could they possibly be? As for going beyond text, it becomes difficult to coordinate richer types of files between different groups, especially if every group is convinced that other groups are missing some vitally important functionality and, therefore, everyone will be convinced of the essential rightness of their cause given enough time.

badsectoracula 5y ago
> Of course they're text. What else could they possibly be? Symbols. > As for going beyond text, it becomes difficult to coordinate richer types of files between different groups Well, yeah, the reason why we focus on Unix as a lowest common denominator for OSes, text files as the best way to store code, etc isn't because they are objectively superior to everything else, but because they are things that were good enough and existed earlier enough to gain approval and have people learn and rely on them. But while this is a practical concern, that doesn't mean we can't think of alternatives. Perhaps with a stroke of luck or the right circumstances (e.g. some new type of platform) it could even catch on.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > > Of course they're text. What else could they possibly be? > Symbols. That would be a sensible response in the world where text and symbols were mutually exclusive, rather than the former being a subset of the latter.
  - pasquinelli 5y ago
    if text is a subset of symbols then there are symbols that aren't text. if you mean to say that symbols are a subset of text, then that is simply confusion.
fao_ 5y ago
Ok, when do you use the @ sign or # sign in text? Without referring to computers :)
- zdragnar 5y ago
  Both predate computers as shorthand spellings of words and phrases. @ for example dates to 1500s Italy. # is often used to denote a number is an ordinal number, or as a substitution for the word pounds (weight, not currency).
  - fao_ 5y ago
    Right, and where are they used in modern text except to refer to computer-related concepts?
    - wolfgang42 5y ago
      Here’s a particularly egregious hypothetical from an invoice: > 100 #2 pencils @ 2¢ ea + 8%* tax = $2.16 (* - state & county)
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      Their wikipedia pages give several modern day usages, including those I listed and the sibling comment (@ meaning at the price of, # as shorthand for pounds, etc)
  - badsectoracula 5y ago
    As you see, these are symbols that can be replaced with a textual description of what they mean - being something like "macros" for text. So as i wrote, we are already using symbols that aren't text and we do enter some of them via dedicated keys on the keyboard. The main issue here is to see these symbols for what they are: an arbitrary set of symbols that we limit ourselves to because they are printed on the keycaps of the keyboards we have. But we don't have to only use symbols found on keycaps, we don't have to use keyboards that essentially inherit the same layout and most of the keys from centuries old typewriters, we don't have to limit ourselves to a handful of letters and symbols chosen decades ago for devices that were already primitive in 1980. The by far main reason we do all that isn't because the current system is better but because of what is essentially software peer pressure.

em-bee 5y ago

There's nothing that can't be represented by a good text file even a plain text file has a bunch of metadata that should actually be part of the file object itself and not rely on the storage medium where different systems have a different idea what metadata should be associated with the data. a plain byte-stream is the simplest, but also the most limited way to represent data. with text based systems i have the option of either loosing the metadata when i copy the bytestream, or i rely on crude methods like EXIF data on images which i can't change without breaking the ability to easily detect if the image itself is changed or not.

mpweiher 5y ago

> This seems to rely on the assumption that Unix was the best approach for OSes one could do in 1980 Why do you think that? > [think] beyond Unix as the lowest common denominator in thinking about OSes? If it's the lowest common denominator, then it's probably not the "best approach", but rather an adequate one?