Starting tomorrow, A Dance A Day will, as its name suggests, feature a new dance tune every day, mostly taken from the English country dance tradition.
I’ve made some changes around here, and they impact how both you and I interact with this blog.
Firstly, I added asides, which are untitled posts in the main stream. I think of them as something like Daring Fireball’s Linked List. I used to tweet links that interest me, but once I’ve put a link in a tweet I haven’t got much space to explain why it was interesting. Sometimes I post links to comedic articles and I don’t want to discuss their accuracy, for example. Bringing that sort of post over here removes an arbitrary length constraint, while still letting me distinguish between full posts and, well, asides.
The previous post is an aside. It’s untitled, and short, but otherwise looks the same as any other post. I might change that.
The second change is that I’ve turned comments (back) on, though only for posts published today or later. The arguments for turning comments off are well thought out and well-meaning, but don’t work out too well in practice.
- They’re for a tiny minority. True, which means it shouldn’t be much effort to manage them.
- comments on the web don’t contribute very much. Many don’t, but can be marginally useful to the post author. It’s common for an article to receive a comment that contains no more than “Typo?”. If I see that, I can correct the typo and delete the comment: you get a more accurate post and a more tidy comment stream, so it’s a net benefit.
- Comments encourage unconsidered responses. and
- Comments allow anonymity and separation of your words from your identity. Both true, but no more than the rest of the internet. And, indeed, no less: the question of whether anonymity or pseudonymity is to be welcomed or shunned is complicated (search for “real names policy”, for example).
- Comments create a burden of moderation on the blog owner. Not too bad, if the “tiny minority” is commenting. I have a spam-detecting thing, and I’m never going to check it. If you don’t want to end up there, don’t try selling my readers herbal viagra.
In addition, having comments switched off dilutes the experience for those people who did want to see what people were talking about. There’d be some chat over on twitter (some of which mentions me, some of which doesn’t), and some over on the blog’s Facebook page. Then people will mention the posts on their favourite forums like Reddit, and a different conversation would happen over there. None of that will stop with comments on, and I wouldn’t want to stop it. Having comments here should guide people, without forcing them, to comment where everyone can see them.
Of course just because it’s possible to submit a comment here doesn’t mean I’ll publish it. I rule with an iron fist, and anything that I don’t think contributes won’t actually get allowed through.
Thomas Hobbes viewed society as a meta-person, a gigantic creature whose parts were human and which was in the service of those humans. Left to their own devices, people would not work well together as their notion of individualism and search for personal gain leads directly to conflict: strong government is needed to instil a sense of cooperation and of social obligation. This idea of “government through social contract” is pervasive in Western political thought, being the basis as it is for the “government of the people, by the people, for the people” with which Abraham Lincoln hoped to lead post-civil war America.
Software systems themselves can also be thought of as Leviathans. From a purely technical sense, all of “professional” software construction is based on notions of composition, of software systems that are themselves made of software systems. So we have structured or procedural programming, with routines composed of subroutines. And functional programming, with functions composed of functions. And object-oriented programming, with objects composed of objects. So central are these ideas to expressions of thought in software that they are considered paradigmatic by many, representing fundamental world-views of the art/craft/science.
There’s a second formulation of software-as-Leviathan, which is closer to Hobbesian meaning. The technical aspect of our software systems is merely a substrate[*] through which a social system—that of the people interacting with the software, the people acting on the software, and the people interacting with the other people—is reified. So the descriptions Hobbes made of his Leviathan can be made of these socio-technical systems:
- First the Matter thereof, and the Artificer; both which is Man[sic].
- Secondly, How, and by what Covenants it is made; what are the Rights and just Power or Authority of a Soveraigne; and what it is that Preserveth and Dissolveth it.
- Thirdly, what is a Christian Common-Wealth.
- Lastly, what is the Kingdome of Darkness.
[*] I wonder what form of substance gives the best sense of the analogy. Scaffolding? Lubricant? Mortar? Framework?
OK, maybe not so much the third one, except that it is really an attempt to define the values and norms of a society, which in the context of Hobbes’s writing, meant a Christian society.
Of course, any attempt to describe such a system is going to be filtered by the preconceptions, ideas and values of the person creating the description. Which brings me onto today’s topic: the pun in the new domain of this blog. Evidently it’s a contraction of “Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programmers”, based on the Abelson and Sussman book title. That book is abbreviated to SICP, so it’s not too difficult to see how it might be adapted to SICPers.
We can also see it as being a Latin abbreviation: sic pers., meaning such a person. So there is both the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programmers, and there is this person who is doing the interpreting, in the domain name.
I recently asked how people would describe this Secure Mac Programming blog were they trying to tell someone else they should read it. Of all the answers, the one that most succinctly sums up the trouble with the old name is from Alan:
I’m probably in the midst of some existential crisis, having spent a couple of years thinking and writing about philosophy, ethics, and the social responsibility of my work and its context. It’s clear that I’m dealing with some conflict, and it doesn’t look like reconciliation is an option.
Often I write about ideas that are still knocking around my head, such that I never come to any conclusion. I’ve used multiple choice conclusions, conclusions that appear to be from a different argument, and have concluded that my entire argument may or may not be useful.
This is just something I need to work out: what do I think I do, what do other people think I do, what parts of that do I like and dislike, are there other things I would like, can I replace the disliked parts with the liked parts, and so on. I write it here as you may have related ideas, or you may be thinking about the same things yourself and benefit from knowing that other people are, too.
What I know includes a list of things that currently interest me:
- the intersection of object-oriented and functional programming styles
- ways to make computers do things that aren’t just programming
- understanding the things we shouldn’t need to reinvent
- programming and its integration into human endeavour as a social science
With all that in mind, I’m happy to introduce the beginning of a slow rebranding of this blog. It is now called the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programmers, and can be found at http://www.sicpers.info/ in addition to its previous home at http://blog.securemacprogramming.com.
I do not intend to remove the old domain or break existing feed subscriptions. Over time (basically, as I work out how to do it) I’ll migrate links, feed entries and so on to reference the new domain, and the age-old updated mission of the blog.