On 11/19/2011 10:21 PM, Daniel Jomphe wrote:
With the tools available to us today, there's no reason why we at least shouldn't have everything needed to make literate programming more seamless, more natural. For example, while reading your toy example, I found myself wanting to ask a question or comment on your thoughts a few times. If your book had been displayed on a dynamic website geared towards literate programming, I might have been able to click on a paragraph and write my question/comment right there. And then, after a short conversation there, you would have integrated the fruits of our conversation directly into the end result. Thus each new reader would have been an occasion to improve the book. ...It's nothing surprising since this kind of review system already exists in some publishers' toolkits.
Especially with support for discussions and iterations, such infrastructure could be used for design in general.
I'm following one or the other Free Software project where an incredible amount of discussions happen regarding work-flow and features. So much thought, so many decisions on details, but for the most part, the implementation is all that remains. But the research, concepts and conscious decisions regarding trade-offs could actually outlive any implementation, they are portable and could be argued to be more valuable.
So funny as it might sound, there's a need for literate design! -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
