From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christopher Dimech Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Quote by Knuth Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 15:17:43 +0200 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: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32871"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, Emanuel Berg To: Jean Louis Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 18 15:18:43 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 1m56gs-0008Ny-EH for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 15:18:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35730 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m56gq-0005k2-PS for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 09:18:40 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47892) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m56gV-0005hU-B2 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 09:18:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:57455) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m56gS-0005CT-PH for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Jul 2021 09:18:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1626614263; bh=osEN4Z+kjaBc5VMSjo/Hqd2Ir/5WrflLzBkIvq0ZlKw=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=CJeDLHWIe+EDoBKWBA6QIqJUcbD2EDTl6Oh3gvkLZJ2VBNMUfV4coTL7c1TK1f/Ik 11dFCut7KtgB79vcOn9+Cz2r59RdBgI2Cas80BMmVRD80huMut1HdxmTNp8M5gwqxC NT2wVuoa7MDCT5LAOpT1DVMp1PhcMFluBD3Z+TfI= X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c Original-Received: from [92.251.40.31] ([92.251.40.31]) by web-mail.gmx.net (3c-app-mailcom-bs09.server.lan [172.19.170.177]) (via HTTP); Sun, 18 Jul 2021 15:17:43 +0200 Importance: normal Sensitivity: Normal In-Reply-To: X-UI-Message-Type: mail X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:tS+vwY07aVAelxYSjqJpPlRG3DpbEXMIi4uWgHbXg7uOy+Mf9jx2AUaLmVq0fZgtn8Fkc liNfZEcAtA0hYB/x3650eg0p8abH77Yrw092NjbcW+33GSKeWKG2+yyP+4ov+Wfx0Z1asEELWg3Y C5dBhPaDY10Jp/lV1g60jpAi9RADHovhqm+HQ8c1GGL34zbIqjlhzHhaLMSa3uReGFC7zIiGuLUh vh7KTrAhggxuTp6hR5GH83tRuPRCgVrv9WbqT+k1B6mutCFw4tMwIUGmjh+87AUlZAeXwzkFXTVI +8= X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:m7dPgz95EDI=:FxLh/UU5vuu/dyWQqCMqLM vGfxjszEN6caMzUv5+xMmEJn2S2GMrUaKQVIi5wZZbB3bqWA1xmeCgp9E9dFIIF6GcqcnWFHW 5DyJc5W3mLUTiuJwg6IRAmnbQI+0NM8/2Sa0V+7FPzTPQsTOfqAWMg9zVRLtaqH+e1haAWUKO oI4PgalMO6Meq7SFV8ENKGgdqIay6RA3vOBy2ia3CRLIAm52iZc0sltAw1FDtsqYkkyxbQXlA sE8ITiICU2EOMCD3O/lkB5cSTfmQGN6VdpermFsPFVlGFvJ/1dT14K3t4gJRAvjH6GKsXFkmg twb8wpl7oiMROsfYauX51ufzww3ZsaVyJv34zwh8LjCftSxQjB+1K5H4hjp/YAYyDxeltUZ71 3U+ZUOEMNGkgCweGHC84XJUfQ8i0uQoKh/Cb8zJU1u1wQc3FA0xIyxmgoBXpeczKtq4vr5lab xx3Qu1AtbtEwF877HzT6hkP9z2MijgByATYw3zfWJjqg4FEHtM+63YM8vZGwBM5uUP54v+ecC q/rMgutI+2WBxLkJH/jHBn8l1muIN/d2nec6d3FKzvItvxXjk4JY4fwbRF4lO7FD9WJOVHZy0 yRLAKEUF3FiZzAo67nFQ2d9+5P7bTzEePmMtGl9yd3GzrGvizP5P5msWnwze5L0SeoIzErlc+ bDMWcb5+uYOSH6eOe6i8XuUSJCgBFFedbLChDv4V2bxkYdaqjAU+xZKPEn6qLv97HLglFdyU7 NIDddMq7zhBZhxQxjV7v7ULBLYQ/iMPxoMvGvDaFs2K0lph4Dv+1Q8iDb+kDkW5C6/p0KvYJ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.19; envelope-from=dimech@gmx.com; helo=mout.gmx.net X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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:131827 Archived-At: > Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 at 11:50 PM > From: "Jean Louis" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org, "Emanuel Berg" > Subject: Re: Quote by Knuth > > * Christopher Dimech [2021-07-18 10:43]: > > > Well, don't we do the very same mathematics as ancient Greeks did, o= nly > > > 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 thing= s > > even more complicated than they are. I rather have a number of small > > well contained implementations. I disagree with Knuth that a practiti= oner > > of literate programming becomes an essayist, whose main concern is wit= h > > exposition and excellence of style, rather than how to perform the act= ual > > 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. Knuth is over-rated. He did not invent anything. Mathematical type-setti= ng had existed long before Knuth. Today people have became obsessed with typesetting, even though the most important thing is the information withi= n rather on how nice an alpha can be printed. > 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. Yes, in a very very limited manner. > 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. Correct. But Knuth idea goes more than that because he was obsessed with presentation and wanted science to be like a work of literature. Without understanding that most work is not work of literature. > 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. Well said. > 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. Nuclear power plants are simply engineering. Things are never done as you= think even for nuclear and medical applications. As long as things work relativ= ely well, the corporations and their engineers are happy. There are enormo= us risks which nobody cares about. Otherwise nothing will get accomplished. > 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. Yes, people got to understand well what you have said. > 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. Mostly they trash it than trying to understand. That happened to me. Sim= ply gave up and done things again as I understand them. > 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. Yes, many times being too literate means many will skip most of what is wr= itten. > 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. You just have to see the number of citations in academic journals. Almost = 44% of all published manuscripts are never cited. Today there are so may articles tha= t I hardly read anything. In a time-frame of ten years, the top 1% researchers in physics and mathem= atics had about 2073 citations. If you have even 1 citation for a manuscript y= ou are already in the top 55.8%. With 10 or more citations, your work is now in = the top 24% of the most cited work worldwide; this increases to the top 1.8% as yo= u reach 100 or more citations. Main take home message: the average citation per manuscript is clearly bel= ow 10! I found an article by Scott Weingart, who gave very similar results, with = 50% of all published papers in the journal Scientometrics having fewer than 4 cit= ations, 70% fewer than 7. http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/index.html@p=3D22108.html Would I care about literate programming. Hell no! > -- > Jean > > Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: > https://www.fsf.org/campaigns > > In support of Richard M. Stallman > https://stallmansupport.org/ > >