3 ms·

I agree 100%. I think however that there are two projects: the "phenomenalist" and the "instrumentalist". In the former part it's a group of polygot philosopher

I agree 100%. I think however that there are two projects: the "phenomenalist" and the "instrumentalist". In the former part it's a group of polygot philosopher-developers waxing philosophic about the nature of programs and in the latter it's "briefs for lead developers". Whilst my inclination in being a Husserlian first-and-foremost is to engage in the former, I think the latter is definitely of interest. The third choice, and this is i think what you mistake my current project to be, is this "binary reductionism" or "symbolic reductionism" where DSLs are either 0/1s or predictate-object statements. I disagree with this entirely, and i think it leads to the current "chose what you like" defeatism. I would like to explore the middle ground for awhile, an "early heidegger" if you like. I think that's going to get a lot more traction in the implementation community. There is definitely a lot of space at this moment in time for some real substantive work in all non-reductionist areas. NB. i think my use of "metalogic" has confused at least a couple of people into thinking im talking about something CSy. Logic in the sense a continental philosopher would use it: a mechanism of reasoning. As I say in my "notes on terminology" i mean to include things like the domain/business logic. I think that, for example, that "a car shouldnt start with no fuel" is part of the program (the metalogic of the program, not the logic itself: it is part of what we need to consider to fully understand the progran). Perhaps i shouldve used "meta-rationale" or something.

davesims 14y ago
Excellent! Agreed completely. Steve mentioned state machines off-hand on the list a while back, and that stayed with me, as someone with a disposition towards Husserl and Bergson and Whitehead and a general Process approach -- that state machines, in the broadest sense, might provide a practical, code-level starting point to focus attention on the "flow" of objects, interfaces that adapt to context and communicate that context to one another. This, combined with more focus on a functional approach and reducing state to manage concurrent issues (where the most practical "ontological" concerns seem to erupt!), might move a "philosophy of code" towards something practical -- if nothing else with a deeper awareness of the general "incompleteness" of all languages and their necessary analogical nature. This at least might mitigate "language wars" and the search for the "one best way" of coding. EDIT: A minor quibble: maybe "phenomenalist" isn't the best term to use in close proximity to Husserl. He used the idea of "phenomenalism" in contradistinction to "phenomenology" -- the former being a kind of reductionist approach to seeing essences as merely the "contents of consciousness", and the latter -- which is to say the general Husserlian approach -- sees essences, or "eidetic objects" as phenomena that intend towards the external world, at least external to subjectivity.

davesims 14y ago

Excellent! Agreed completely. Steve mentioned state machines off-hand on the list a while back, and that stayed with me, as someone with a disposition towards Husserl and Bergson and Whitehead and a general Process approach -- that state machines, in the broadest sense, might provide a practical, code-level starting point to focus attention on the "flow" of objects, interfaces that adapt to context and communicate that context to one another. This, combined with more focus on a functional approach and reducing state to manage concurrent issues (where the most practical "ontological" concerns seem to erupt!), might move a "philosophy of code" towards something practical -- if nothing else with a deeper awareness of the general "incompleteness" of all languages and their necessary analogical nature. This at least might mitigate "language wars" and the search for the "one best way" of coding. EDIT: A minor quibble: maybe "phenomenalist" isn't the best term to use in close proximity to Husserl. He used the idea of "phenomenalism" in contradistinction to "phenomenology" -- the former being a kind of reductionist approach to seeing essences as merely the "contents of consciousness", and the latter -- which is to say the general Husserlian approach -- sees essences, or "eidetic objects" as phenomena that intend towards the external world, at least external to subjectivity.