4 ms·

I think the overall idea here is really cool. But ... to me the idea of printing stanzas of code onto paper and then putting them on a board so they can be OCRe

• bsimpson 2y ago
  It's not OCR. Those colored dots along the periphery are fiducials. They're how Realtalk recognizes a program. Every object that you can interact with in Realtalk has a unique set of fiducials. When the camera sees one, it looks up its behavior and projects it accordingly.
  • modeless 2y ago
    So if you physically copy and paste code, or edit it with a pen, that won't work, right? The embodiment feels superficial.
    • jf 2y ago
      Correct, that doesn't work in the system as implemented. But my understanding is that there has been a goal from the start to _eventually_ get physical code editing to work. I recall hearing the researchers talking about wanting to eventually get handwriting recognition working, so you could edit code by hand.
    • rtkwe 2y ago
      Cameras good enough to do that kind of work aren't really available right now. It does still make the code more accessible by making it immediately visible on the object so if you want to know how a thing works you can just pick it up.
  • abeppu 2y ago
    ... so in the intro video at like 2:37, it says that a program can be in language, or an arrangement of components, or a hand-drawn diagram, because anything you can write an interpreter for is a program. The "arrangement of components" and the "hand-drawn diagram" shots show stuff drawn on a whiteboard, which seems like it can be edited by redrawing. Are you saying that a hand-drawn diagram program can be freely edited by changing the diagram, but a language-based program cannot be edited by changing the representation of its code? That seems ... worse. I would think that you'd want a fiducial marker on code-printouts to identify that a piece of code has a language and a namespace perhaps (i.e. "this page contains a kotlin definition that lives in com.acme.foo"), but that the contents should be modifiable. Otherwise, what's the point? If to edit the code you're gonna pull up a keyboard and screen (or project an editor window) ... then this seems like what we already have, plus you have to print stuff out.
    • bsimpson 2y ago
      It's been 6 years since I've been there. I'm sure they've made developments since then. I also think these comments along the lines of "what about X" are unhelpfully reductivist/dismissive. The whole point is that it's a research project. If you can think of a better way to make ephemeral room-sized computing work - cool, let's try that! Just because it worked some way when I was there in 2018 or some way in the video doesn't mean that's the end vision for how it will always be. This isn't a product. It's a vision for the future.
      • abeppu 2y ago
        > The whole point is that it's a research project. > It's a vision for the future. Neither of these mean we can't or shouldn't be able to have discuss whether parts of it are good or bad, make more or less sense. Is it a vision of a future you'd want to work with/in? > I also think these comments along the lines of "what about X" are unhelpfully reductivist/dismissive. My first statement was "I think the overall idea here is really cool". The intent is not to be dismissive. But if you think the only acceptable reaction is unalloyed praise ... then why even have it on a discussion-oriented site? I think the way of working being demonstrated seems like a great fit for some kinds of work and that trying to awkwardly shoehorn software-development to happen in their system detracts rather than adds to it. > If you can think of a better way to make ephemeral room-sized computing work ... I think an IDE, a keyboard, and a projector are better than printing code blocks at a specific revision which is identified by a computer-readable id, and which must be given a new ID and a new printed page every time you want to try executing a new version.