From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jean Louis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Quote by Knuth Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 14:50:46 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87r1gbdr6d.fsf@zoho.eu> <87o8b4eiyr.fsf@mbork.pl> <87y2a8ecck.fsf@zoho.eu> <87k0lsdsaw.fsf@mbork.pl> <87eebweq7y.fsf@mbork.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6571"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/2.0.7+183 (3d24855) (2021-05-28) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, Emanuel Berg To: Christopher Dimech Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 18 13:52:51 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m55Lm-0001Ur-1y for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 13:52:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40282 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m55Ll-0006Cv-1S for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 07:52:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37312) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m55Kh-0006BV-IG for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 07:51:43 -0400 Original-Received: from stw1.rcdrun.com ([217.170.207.13]:43979) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m55Kf-00014O-4n for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 07:51:42 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([::ffff:197.157.0.54]) (AUTH: PLAIN admin, TLS: TLS1.3,256bits,ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by stw1.rcdrun.com with ESMTPSA id 0000000000057D88.0000000060F415CA.00005091; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 04:51:38 -0700 Mail-Followup-To: Christopher Dimech , Marcin Borkowski , help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, Emanuel Berg Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.170.207.13; envelope-from=bugs@gnu.support; helo=stw1.rcdrun.com X-Spam_score_int: 29 X-Spam_score: 2.9 X-Spam_bar: ++ X-Spam_report: (2.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.help:131825 Archived-At: * Christopher Dimech [2021-07-18 10:43]: > > Well, don't we do the very same mathematics as ancient Greeks did, only > > expressing it in a different language? (And of course, we now know > > more, since our knowledge grows. OTOH, many things in contemporary > > mathematics are not very trustworthy due to the complexity and high > > probability of errors.) > > I understand that. About twenty years ago, I tried it. It gets things > even more complicated than they are. I rather have a number of small > well contained implementations. I disagree with Knuth that a practitioner > of literate programming becomes an essayist, whose main concern is with > exposition and excellence of style, rather than how to perform the actual > computation. If you would be the inventor of such an excellent typesetting system such as TeX you would have that good idea that other people should learn and apply it as well. By all means I do agree with Knuth, though in limited manner and specifically to context of the work or to specific domains or specific branches of the work. For majority of Emacs packages that is really not necessary as there are documentation strings or docstrings. That is literate enough. Print the Emacs package and read the docstrings. Or one can generate the list of functions in the package and format it it nicer and get somewhat nicer printout. But Emacs packages do not really control crucial or very responsible domains of human activities. Who cares if some frame or window makes a problem, even if Emacs crashes there are remedies, if some highlighting is not correct, somebody will need to correct it but it does not impact large number of people. Literate programming is highly necessary in crucial and high responsibility related applications. Let us say applications concerning handling of nuclear power plants, any other energy related applications, medical applications, satellite control, communication control. One simply SHOULD NOT program without good description on what that program does and how. Literate programming would also help the programmer easier to solve the problems before the program come to shape. That I personally just start the function because I write what I think is far from being understood in some future. It cannot be demonstratably easily understood on this mailing list even by experienced and more skilled people. Our thoughts do not align to other people thoughts and so our programs may look quite different from one to each other. Then future programmer may need to rewrite functions or improve upon it. In fact there should be a program that rewrites it in other new or more powerful programming language. Project has been programmed, it is finished and years pass, now come the new generation and that generation of people should be able to understand all details of the program in general. That understanding would come from literate programming. In general, when there are simpler programs why complicate and make it too much literate? We can see that there is no reason for that in practice. One README or INSTALLATION file and docstrings and commentaries are obviously our practical way of literate programming. The demand for literate programming depends on the importance of the program. > I know a few professors myself claiming to work on the dynamic > properties of everything and the bullshit they say they have > developed. They say they develop the theories, they develop the > computational algorithms needed, they do everything. Until you do > some work with them and realise there's not much to their work. > Welcome to the world of academia in the western world. That is how it is, among those useless there will be number of useful inventions. I see that as a ratio and ratio has to be upheld. Maybe the ratio of useless invention is 80 to 20 of useful inventions, but if you do not uphold the ratio then you will get less useful inventions in future. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/