Jonathan Edwards is an independent researcher working on drastically simplifying programming for beginners. He is known for his Subtext series of programming language experiments and his Alarming Development blog. He has been a researcher at MIT CSAIL and CDG/HARC. He tweets @jonathoda.

Jonathan Edwards is an independent researcher working on drastically simplifying programming for beginners. He is known for his&nbsp;<a href="http://subtext-lang.org/">Subtext</a>&nbsp;series of programming language experiments and his&nbsp;<a href="http://alarmingdevelopment.org/">Alarming Development</a>&nbsp;blog. He has been a researcher at MIT CSAIL and CDG/HARC. He tweets&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/jonathoda">@jonathoda</a>.

Playful explorations of the rich past and exciting future that we're all building with our silly little computers. Hosted by Jimmy Miller and Ivan Reese.

Playful explorations of the rich past and exciting future that we're all building with our silly little computers. Hosted by Jimmy Miller and Ivan Reese.

Future of Coding

De-Nerding Programming: Jonathan Edwards

This community is a big tent. We welcome folks from all backgrounds, and all levels of experience with computers. Heck, on our last episode, we celebrated an article written by someone who is, rounding down, a lawyer! A constant question I ponder is: what's the best way to introduce someone to the world of FoC? If someone is a workaday programmer, or a non-programmer, what can we share with them to help them understand our area of interest?

A personal favourite is the New Media Reader, but it's long and dense. An obvious crowd-pleaser is Inventing on Principle.

Bonnie Nardi's A Small Matter of Programming deserves a place on the list, especially if the reader is already an avid programmer who doesn't yet understand the point of end-user programming. They might ask, "Why should typical computer users bother learning to program?" Well, that's the wrong question! Instead, we should start broader. Why do we use computers? What do we use them to do? What happens when they don't do what we want? Who controls what they do? Will this ever change? What change do we want? Nardi challenges us to explore these questions, and gives the reader a gentle but definitive push in a positive direction.

Next time, we're… considered harmful?

#### $

We have launched a Patreon!

=> patreon.com/futureofcoding

If, with the warmth in your heart and the wind in your wallet, you so choose to support this show then please know that we are tremendously grateful.

Producing this show takes a minor mountain of effort, and while the countless throngs of adoring fair-weather fans will surely arrive eventually, the small kilo-cadre of diehard listeners we've accrued so far makes each new episode a true joy to share. Through thick and thin (mostly thin since the sponsorship landscape turned barren) we're going to keep doing our darnedest to make something thought-provoking with an independent spirit. If that tickles you pink, throw some wood in our fireplace! (Yes, Ivan is writing this, how can you tell?)

Also, it doesn't hurt that the 2nd bonus episode — "Inherently Spatial" — is one of the best episodes of the show yet. It defrags so hard; you'll love it.

#### Init
Bug report: Frog Fractions. Oh the indignity!
Hey, it's The Witness in our show notes again.
Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy is the better game, even if it spawned Only Up and other copycats that miss the point. The Looker gets the point.
Getting Over It is a triumph that emerged from a genre of games that are hard to play: Octodad, QWOP, I Am Bread
Braid arguably spawned the genre of high-minded & heady puzzlers that all try to say something profound through their design.
Cookie Clicker and Universal Paperclips are good incremental games.
Jump King and Only Up are intentionally bad. Flappy Bird was accidentally good. Surgeon Simulator and Goat Simulator are purely for the laughs. Stanley Parable, like Getting Over It, brings in the voice of the creator to (say) invite rumination on the fourth wall, which is what make them transcendent.
Here's the trailer for Bennett Foddy's new game, Baby Steps.
So on the one hand we have all these "bad" and """bad""" and sometimes badgames, which actually end up doing quite well in advancing the culture. On the other hand we have The Witness, The Talos Principal, Swapper, Antichamber, QUBE, and all these high-minded puzzly games, which despite their best efforts to say something through their design… kinda don't.
When comparing the "interactivity" of these games, it's tempting to talk about the mechanics (or dynamics), but that formal definition feels a little too precise. We mean something looser — something closer to the colloquial meaning when "Gamers" talk about "game mechanics".
Silent Football might be an example of "sports as art". Mao is a card game where explaining the rules is forbidden.

#### Main
The Partially Examined Life is one of Jimmy's favourite philosophy podcasts.
Two essays from Scientific American's 1991 Special Issue Communications, Computers and Networks are referenced in the first chapter, one by Larry Tesler and one by Alan Kay. The other essays in this issue are also quite interesting to reflect on from our position 30 years hence.
Apple's Knowledge Navigator video, and HP's 1995 video, are speculative fiction marketing about conversational agents.
Rewind.ai is one of those "Computer, when did I last degauss the tachyon masticator?" tools. (Oh, Lifestreams…)
S-GPT is Federico Viticci's iOS/Mac Shortcut that strings together ChatGPT and various Shortcuts features, so that you can do some nifty automation stuff via a conversational interface. It feels like similar things could be built — heck, probably already have been built — with "If-Tuh-Tuh-Tuh" or Zapier.
When Ivan reaches for domain-specific terminology, LUT, Arri Alexa, and Redcome easily because, like, he wishes he had occasion to use them.
To hear the story about the Secret Service busting down young Jimmy's door, listen to his episode on the Code With Jason podcast.
C Is Not a Low-level Language — a fantastic article about the illusion that our source code closely matches what actually happens during execution.
What Follows from Empirical Software Research? Not much, according to Jimmy in this delightful article.
Jimmy likes to reference Minecraft's "redstone" which acts a bit like a programming system, so here, have a video about redstone.
Ivan saw this video via Mastodon, about someone making a "real" camera in Blender, and… just… 🤯 — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE9rEQAGpLw
Jimmy's orchestra struggled with an inappropriately formal approach to Coldplay's Viva La Vida.
Knuth's up-arrow notation

One meaning of "end-user programming" is about allowing people to build their own software. Another is about modifying existing software, and here are two interesting links related to this second meaning:


sprout.place is a lovely website where you decorate a little virtual space together with some remote friends. It's like a MySpace page mashed-up with a Zoom hang, but better.


Geoffrey Litt is a researcher who has tackled both meanings of EUP, but his work on the second meaning is especially interesting. For instance: he worked on Riffle, which explored the consequences of putting the full state of an app inside a reactive database, which is especially interesting if you consider what can be done if this database is available to, rather than hidden from, the end user.


To the best of our recollection, Jonathan Edwards has advocated for "end-programmer programming" as a helpful step toward end-user programming.

Get in touch, ask us questions, please no more mp3s ahh I can still hear the bones yuck:
Ivan: Mastodon • Email
Jimmy: Mastodon • Twitter
DM us in the FoC Slack
Support the show on Patreon
lol stands for "lots of love"

https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/066

This community is a big tent. We welcome folks from all backgrounds, and all levels of experience with computers. Heck, on our last episode, we celebrated an article written by someone who is, rounding down, a lawyer! A constant question I ponder is: what's the best way to introduce someone to the world of FoC? If someone is a workaday programmer, or a non-programmer, what can we share with them to help them understand our area of interest?
A personal favourite is the <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262232272/">New Media Reader</a>, but it's long and dense. An obvious crowd-pleaser is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUv66718DII">Inventing on Principle</a>.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_Nardi">Bonnie Nardi</a>'s <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262292368/a-small-matter-of-programming/">A Small Matter of Programming</a> deserves a place on the list, especially if the reader is already an avid programmer who doesn't yet understand the point of end-user programming. They might ask, "Why should typical computer users bother learning to program?" Well, that's the wrong question! Instead, we should start broader. Why do we use computers? What do we use them to do? What happens when they don't do what we want? Who controls what they do? Will this ever change? What change do we want? Nardi challenges us to explore these questions, and gives the reader a gentle but definitive push in a positive direction.
Next time, we're… considered harmful?
#### $
We have launched a Patreon!
=&gt; <a href="http://patreon.com/futureofcoding">patreon.com/futureofcoding</a>
If, with the warmth in your heart and the wind in your wallet, you so choose to support this show then please know that we are tremendously grateful.
Producing this show takes a minor mountain of effort, and while the countless throngs of adoring fair-weather fans will surely arrive eventually, the small kilo-cadre of diehard listeners we've accrued so far makes each new episode a true joy to share. Through thick and thin (mostly thin since the sponsorship landscape turned barren) we're going to keep doing our darnedest to make something thought-provoking with an independent spirit. If that tickles you pink, throw some wood in our fireplace! (Yes, Ivan is writing this, how can you tell?)
Also, it doesn't hurt that the 2nd bonus episode — "Inherently Spatial" — is one of the best episodes of the show yet. It defrags so hard; you'll love it.
#### Init
<ul>
<li>Bug report: <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1194840/Frog_Fractions_Game_of_the_Decade_Edition/">Frog Fractions</a>. Oh the indignity!</li>
<li>Hey, it's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9AtV8FIzFI">The Witness</a> in our show notes again.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Over_It_with_Bennett_Foddy">Getting Over It with Bennett Foddy</a> is the better game, even if it spawned <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVHF-vSK3wY">Only Up</a> and other copycats that miss the point. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWHEmg7f8Lw">The Looker gets the point.</a></li>
<li><a href="https://youtu.be/DYjbCJXxWLg?t=473">Getting Over It is a triumph</a> that emerged from a genre of games that are hard to play: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbjqsMqJZ6M&amp;t=14s">Octodad</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmcMG4uxiHk">QWOP</a>, <a href="https://youtu.be/RjJjUu0WjFg?t=77">I Am Bread</a></li>
<li><a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/26800/Braid/">Braid</a> arguably spawned the genre of high-minded &amp; heady puzzlers that all try to say something profound through their design.</li>
<li><a href="https://orteil.dashnet.org/cookieclicker/">Cookie Clicker</a> and <a href="https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/">Universal Paperclips</a> are good <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incremental_game">incremental games</a>.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_King">Jump King</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_Up!">Only Up</a> are intentionally bad. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flappy_Bird">Flappy Bird</a> was accidentally good. <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/233720/Surgeon_Simulator/">Surgeon Simulator</a> and <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/265930/Goat_Simulator/">Goat Simulator</a> are purely for the laughs. <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1703340/The_Stanley_Parable_Ultra_Deluxe/">Stanley Parable</a>, like Getting Over It, brings in the voice of the creator to (say) invite rumination on the fourth wall, which is what make them transcendent.</li>
<li>Here's the trailer for Bennett Foddy's new game, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBaOE-FpIBw">Baby Steps</a>.</li>
<li>So on the one hand we have all these "bad" and """bad""" and sometimes badgames, which actually end up doing quite well in advancing the culture. On the other hand we have The Witness, <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/257510/The_Talos_Principle/">The Talos Principal</a>, <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/231160/The_Swapper/">Swapper</a>, <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/219890/Antichamber/">Antichamber</a>, <a href="https://store.steampowered.com/app/1564220/QUBE_10th_Anniversary/">QUBE</a>, and all these high-minded puzzly games, which despite their best efforts to say something through their design… kinda don't.</li>
<li>When comparing the "interactivity" of these games, it's tempting to talk about the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDA_framework">mechanics (or dynamics)</a>, but that formal definition feels a little too precise. We mean something looser — something closer to the colloquial meaning when "Gamers" talk about "game mechanics".</li>
<li><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/silentfootball/comments/rro8r2/the_rules_of_silent_football/">Silent Football</a> might be an example of "sports as art". <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_(card_game)">Mao</a> is a card game where explaining the rules is forbidden.</li>
</ul>
#### Main
<ul>
<li>The <a href="https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/">Partially Examined Life</a> is one of Jimmy's favourite philosophy podcasts.</li>
<li>Two essays from Scientific American's 1991 Special Issue <a href="https://archive.org/details/communicationsco0000unse_p4x1/page/n3/mode/2up">Communications, Computers and Networks</a> are referenced in the first chapter, one by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Tesler">Larry Tesler</a> and one by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Kay">Alan Kay</a>. The other essays in this issue are also quite <a href="https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/C5U3SEW6A/p1688074700726099">interesting to reflect on</a> from our position 30 years hence.</li>
<li>Apple's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mLqJNDWx-8">Knowledge Navigator</a> video, and HP's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPKX5iuBvZg">1995</a> video, are <a href="http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesign/">speculative fiction marketing</a> about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_system">conversational agents</a>.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.rewind.ai/">Rewind.ai</a> is one of those "Computer, when did I last degauss the tachyon masticator?" tools. (Oh, <a href="http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/freeman/lifestreams.html">Lifestreams</a>…)</li>
<li><a href="https://www.macstories.net/ios/introducing-s-gpt-a-shortcut-to-connect-openais-chatgpt-with-native-features-of-apples-operating-systems/">S-GPT</a> is <a href="http://ticci.org/">Federico Viticci</a>'s iOS/Mac Shortcut that strings together <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT">ChatGPT</a> and various <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortcuts_(app)">Shortcuts</a> features, so that you can do some nifty automation stuff via a conversational interface. It feels like similar things could be built — heck, probably already have been built — with <a href="https://ifttt.com/">"If-Tuh-Tuh-Tuh"</a> or <a href="https://zapier.com/">Zapier</a>.</li>
<li>When Ivan reaches for domain-specific terminology, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_lookup_table">LUT</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arri_Alexa">Arri Alexa</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema">Red</a>come easily because, like, he wishes he had occasion to use them.</li>
<li>To hear the story about the Secret Service busting down young Jimmy's door, listen to his episode on the <a href="https://www.codewithjason.com/podcast/13032809-186-jimmy-miller/">Code With Jason</a> podcast.</li>
<li><a href="https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3212479">C Is Not a Low-level Language</a> — a fantastic article about the illusion that our source code closely matches what actually happens during execution.</li>
<li><a href="https://jimmyhmiller.github.io/empirical">What Follows from Empirical Software Research?</a> Not much, according to Jimmy in this delightful article.</li>
<li>Jimmy likes to reference Minecraft's "redstone" which acts a bit like a programming system, so here, have a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooL9nVQA6qU">video about redstone</a>.</li>
<li>Ivan saw this video via Mastodon, about someone making a "real" camera in Blender, and… just… 🤯 — <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE9rEQAGpLw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE9rEQAGpLw</a></li>
<li>Jimmy's orchestra struggled with an inappropriately formal approach to Coldplay's <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvgZkm1xWPE">Viva La Vida</a>.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation">Knuth's up-arrow notation</a></li>
</ul>
One meaning of "end-user programming" is about allowing people to build their own software. Another is about modifying existing software, and here are two interesting links related to this second meaning:
<ul>
<li>
<a href="https://sprout.place/">sprout.place</a> is a lovely website where you decorate a little virtual space together with some remote friends. It's like a MySpace page mashed-up with a Zoom hang, but better.
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.geoffreylitt.com/">Geoffrey Litt</a> is a researcher who has tackled both meanings of EUP, but his work on the second meaning is especially interesting. For instance: he worked on <a href="https://riffle.systems/essays/prelude/">Riffle</a>, which explored the consequences of putting the full state of an app inside a reactive database, which is especially interesting if you consider what can be done if this database is available to, rather than hidden from, the end user.
</li>
<li>
To the best of our recollection, <a href="https://www.subtext-lang.org/AboutMe.htm">Jonathan Edwards</a> has advocated for "end-programmer programming" as a helpful step toward end-user programming.
</li>
</ul>
Get in touch, ask us questions, please no more mp3s ahh I can still hear the bones yuck:
<ul>
<li>Ivan: <a href="https://mastodon.social/@spiralganglion">Mastodon</a> • <a href="mailto:admin@futureofcoding.org?subject=Question%20from%20an%20FoC%20Listener">Email</a></li>
<li>Jimmy: <a href="https://hachyderm.io/@jimmyhmiller">Mastodon</a> • <a href="https://twitter.com/jimmyhmiller">Twitter</a></li>
<li>DM us in the <a href="https://futureofcoding.org/community">FoC Slack</a></li>
<li>Support the show on <a href="https://www.patreon.com/futureofcoding">Patreon</a><a href="http://patreon.com/futureofcoding"></a></li>
<li>lol stands for "lots of love"</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/066">https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/066</a>

A Small Matter of Programming by Bonnie Nardi

The execution of code, by its very nature, creates the conditions of a "strong legalism" in which you must unquestioningly obey laws produced without your say, invisibly, with no chance for appeal. This is a wild idea; today's essay is packed with them. In drawing parallels between law and computing, it gives us a new skepticism about software and the effect it has on the world. It's also full of challenges and benchmarks and ideas for ways that code can be reimagined. The conclusion of the essay is flush with inspiration, and the references are stellar. So while it might not look it at first, this is one of the most powerful works of FoC we've read: Interpreting the Rule(s) of Code: Performance, Performativity, and Production by Laurence Diver, 2001.

Next episode, we're having an open-ended discussion about end-user programming. The reading is Bonnie Nardi's 1993 classic, A Small Matter of Programming, with the referenced articles from the 1991 Scientific American special issue Communications, Computers and Networks as extra background.

Links
Nova is the new code editor from Panic. Ivan is using it now that his beloved Atom has hit end-of-life.
Ira Glass spoke about The Gap
Ivan's unicorn-puke GUI
Jimmy tried recreating the grainy effect used by The Browser Company's Arc
Chris Granger's Light Table was an early Kickstarter success.
iA Presenter has a clichéd video teaser. Mimestream, a great native Mac client for Gmail, also made one of these. Ivan first saw this style of video over a decade ago with Sparrow — and at least this one has a narrative. Occasionally, someone does a playful tweak on the formula, like this video that keeps getting interrupted for Dark Noise. But in general, this format is worn out, and it was never great to begin with.
Here's the classic Atom 1.0 announcement video
Very Bad Wizards and If Books Could Kill are podcasts that talk through a work from beginning to end sprinkling in reflections as they go, rather than jumping around randomly or separating recap from reflection.
Speech act has a philosophy corner within the philosophy corner. Elephant 2000 by Lisp creator John McCarthy, and Dynamicland, both make use of speech acts.
On The Expressive Power of Programming Languages by Matthias Felleisen
The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
Black, a reflective Scheme by Kenichi Asai.
Hollow Knight is a great game for a 4-year old, and a 40-year old. It's just a great game. Maybe the greatest? Doom Eternal, not so much — but the inventive soundtrack absolutely slays.
Local-first software
Tony Gilroy's Andor and Terry Gilliam's Brazil. In hindsight, I'm surprised we made it all the way to the final minutes of the show before mentioning Brazil.

Get in touch, ask us questions, DON'T send us the sound of your knuckles cracking:
Ivan: Mastodon • Email
Jimmy: Mastodon • Twitter
Join the Future of Coding Slack

https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/065

The execution of code, by its very nature, creates the conditions of a "strong legalism" in which you must unquestioningly obey laws produced without your say, invisibly, with no chance for appeal. This is a wild idea; today's essay is packed with them. In drawing parallels between law and computing, it gives us a new skepticism about software and the effect it has on the world. It's also full of challenges and benchmarks and ideas for ways that code can be reimagined. The conclusion of the essay is flush with inspiration, and the references are stellar. So while it might not look it at first, this is one of the most powerful works of FoC we've read: <a href="https://law.mit.edu/pub/interpretingtherulesofcode/">Interpreting the Rule(s) of Code: Performance, Performativity, and Production</a> by Laurence Diver, 2001.
Next episode, we're having an open-ended discussion about end-user programming. The reading is Bonnie Nardi's 1993 classic, <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/655143/a-small-matter-of-programming-by-bonnie-a-nardi/">A Small Matter of Programming</a>, with the referenced articles from the 1991 Scientific American special issue <a href="https://archive.org/details/communicationsco0000unse_p4x1/page/n3">Communications, Computers and Networks</a> as extra background.
Links
<ul>
<li><a href="https://nova.app/">Nova</a> is the new code editor from <a href="https://panic.com/">Panic</a>. Ivan is using it now that his beloved Atom has hit <a href="https://github.blog/2022-06-08-sunsetting-atom/">end-of-life</a>.</li>
<li>Ira Glass spoke about <a href="https://vimeo.com/85040589">The Gap</a></li>
<li>Ivan's <a href="https://twitter.com/spiralganglion/status/1557200879287095296">unicorn-puke GUI</a></li>
<li>Jimmy tried recreating the grainy effect used by The Browser Company's <a href="https://arc.net/">Arc</a></li>
<li>Chris Granger's <a href="https://chris-granger.com/lighttable/">Light Table</a> was an early Kickstarter success.</li>
<li><a href="file:///Applications/iA%20Writer.app/Contents/Resources/Templates/Sans.iatemplate/Contents/Resources/ia.net/presenter">iA Presenter</a> has a clichéd <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppuf6TCfSvo">video teaser</a>. <a href="https://mimestream.com/">Mimestream</a>, a great native Mac client for Gmail, also made <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmtKeKRd5kk">one of these</a>. Ivan first saw this style of video over a decade ago with <a href="https://vimeo.com/32852176">Sparrow</a> — and at least this one has a narrative. Occasionally, someone does a playful tweak on the formula, like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEXRx5wZ-cw">this video that keeps getting interrupted</a> for Dark Noise. But in general, this format is worn out, and it was never great to begin with.</li>
<li>Here's the classic <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7aEiVwBAdk">Atom 1.0 announcement video</a></li>
<li><a href="https://verybadwizards.com/">Very Bad Wizards</a> and <a href="https://www.patreon.com/IfBooksPod">If Books Could Kill</a> are podcasts that talk through a work from beginning to end sprinkling in reflections as they go, rather than jumping around randomly or separating recap from reflection.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_act">Speech act</a> has a philosophy corner within the philosophy corner. <a href="http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/elephant.pdf">Elephant 2000</a> by Lisp creator John McCarthy, and <a href="https://dynamicland.org/">Dynamicland</a>, both make use of speech acts.</li>
<li><a href="https://sci-hub.ru/10.1016/0167-6423(91)90036-w">On The Expressive Power of Programming Languages</a> by Matthias Felleisen</li>
<li>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity">Sapir-Whorf hypothesis</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.is.ocha.ac.jp/~asai/Black/">Black</a>, a reflective Scheme by Kenichi Asai.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Knight">Hollow Knight</a> is a great game for a 4-year old, and a 40-year old. It's just a great game. Maybe the greatest? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_Eternal">Doom Eternal</a>, not so much — but <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4FNBMZsqrY">the inventive soundtrack</a> absolutely slays.</li>
<li><a href="https://www.inkandswitch.com/local-first/">Local-first software</a></li>
<li>Tony Gilroy's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andor_(TV_series)">Andor</a> and Terry Gilliam's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil_(1985_film)">Brazil</a>. In hindsight, I'm surprised we made it all the way to the final minutes of the show before mentioning Brazil.</li>
</ul>
Get in touch, ask us questions, DON'T send us the sound of your knuckles cracking:
<ul>
<li>Ivan: <a href="https://mastodon.social/@spiralganglion">Mastodon</a> • <a href="mailto:admin@futureofcoding.org?subject=Question%20from%20an%20FoC%20Listener">Email</a></li>
<li>Jimmy: <a href="https://hachyderm.io/@jimmyhmiller">Mastodon</a> • <a href="https://twitter.com/jimmyhmiller">Twitter</a></li>
<li>Join the <a href="https://futureofcoding.org/community">Future of Coding Slack</a></li>
</ul>
<a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/065">https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/065</a>

Interpreting the Rule(s) of Code by Laurence Diver

This is a normal episode of a podcast called Future of Coding. We talk about INTERCAL, a real tool for computer programming. [Do I need to say more? Will this sell it? Most people won’t have heard of INTERCAL, but I think the fake out “normal” is enough to draw their attention. Also, I find “computer programming” funny. Not sure why I put that in quotes.]

Links [at least, the ones I remembered to jot down]


The final Strange Loop is coming up this September. Ivan and Jimmy will both be there, though—late breaking news—neither of them will be giving a talk. (“Rocket Rules” apply, if you know what that is.) [Will anyone actually know what “Rocket Rules” is? Will they search for it? That would be sort of embarrassing for me.]


If Ivan were to give a programming talk, getting some flood-contaminated gear from DEC or a PDP-11 to use as staging / set dressing might be a challenge. [Yay, another retread of my personal history. Maybe instead of dredging up my past I should be the sort of person who makes new things, like, ever.]


Meowmeowbeenz [Gah this show hasn’t aged well. At least I’m sticking to the whole “high-brow + low-brow” personal identity by including the reference to it. [Is “meta” low-brow at this point?]]


There’s lots of talk about esolangs (esoteric programming languages), so it’s worth linking the Esolang Wiki. [I worry that we spent too much time focusing on surface syntax. Jimmy tried to get us to talk about the beautifully-weird semantics within INTERCAL, but we never fully went there. I’m sure some people will complain about this lack of depth. Not looking forward to that.]


In particular, Brainfuck, which Jimmy adorably refers to as “BF” because he’s a polite gentleman and Ivan is 2% South Park. [Laughing at my own joke.]


Also, Shakespeare and Shakespeare: vaulting ambition, Out, damned spot, both from the Scottish play (you don’t know where I am, don’t @ me). [Why are these in the show notes? Am I trying to signal some sort of theatre-literacy? Who cares?]


“COMEFROM was eventually implemented in the C-INTERCAL variant of the esoteric programming language INTERCAL” [Considering that this was such a non-element in the original paper, it’s weird that it became such a cornerstone of the episode. “What if we recreated the spirit of the paper in the podcast itself” is a tall order, so I guess we did what we could with what we had. Also, I bet someone is going to object that the paper and language aren’t actually very meta, especially not multiple layers deep, to which I’ll reply: we all bring the flavour of our mouth to the soup we taste.]


Exapunks… Yeah! [Speaking of things that haven’t aged well… woof. I like our newer episodes better. Especially this one. THAT’S JUST BAIT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WILL COMPLAIN THAT THIS SHOW HAS GONE OFF THE RAILS, PLEASE DO CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO THE SHOW.]


Our tier list was created in tldraw, because it’s the best. [I wish someone applied Steve-and-co’s eye for detail to a visual programming tool. I wish I had time.]


The excellent Advent of Computing podcast did an episode on INTERCAL. (Aside: the AoC website seems a bit busted in non-Chrome browsers, so here’s a backup YouTube link, but you can also just search for Advent of Computing in your podcast player of choice.) [AoC is the exception that proves the rule: there are no high-quality programming podcasts. They all seem so low-effort, made by people who don’t respect the listener’s time and attention. Or they’re aping the high-budget NPR style, with no personality. Also, audio quality is all over the map. Also, just the worst garbage ads and theme music, all of them! I wonder if it’s just a cost-benefit time/energy tradeoff, or maybe people don’t know how to do better? I wonder what we could do to help raise the bar, without opening ourselves up to a bunch of “well I don’t like your podcast either” presumed competitiveness.]


The video Screens in Screens in Screens is fantastic, and the sort of thing that deserves our support. Also, Lu Wilson (the human behind TodePond) has their own programming language that will not be named on podcasts, DreamBerd, which uses the ! to great effect. [Meta-commentary intentionally left blank.]

Some of the music featured in this episode:
All Caps by MF DOOM and Madlib [I don’t even like it when other podcasts include music clips, but then away I go needle-dropping like I’ve got something to prove.]
Various songs from Ivan’s old albums. [I need to update my website. I need to tweak my static site generator. I need to redesign all the CSS. I need to consider putting all my projects into a database so I can generate nicer indexes. I also need to make some new projects — especially music.]

Get in touch, ask us questions, send us the sound of your knuckles cracking:
Ivan: Mastodon • Email [If you don’t have something nice to say, know that I’m very sensitive and nurse wounds for a long time. Also, Nurse With Wound is great.]
Jimmy: Mastodon • Twitter [Jimmy doesn’t write these notes so I don’t know what he’s thinking, but I can imagine: a horse galloping in the wind, Jimmy riding shirtless on the horse, Jimmy holding a gigantic tome of philosophical wisdom in one hand, the other outstretched before him, words of revelation flowing from his mouth like honey, “Ivan, the setup to this joke was lame”]
Or just DM us in the FoC Slack. [<3]

https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/064

This is a normal episode of a podcast called Future of Coding. We talk about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERCAL">INTERCAL</a>, a real tool for computer programming. [Do I need to say more? Will this sell it? Most people won’t have heard of INTERCAL, but I think the fake out “normal” is enough to draw their attention. Also, I find “computer programming” funny. Not sure why I put that in quotes.]
Links [at least, the ones I remembered to jot down]<a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/064#links-at-least-the-ones-i-remembered-to-jot-down" aria-label="Anchor" data-anchorjs-icon=""></a>
<ul>
<li>
The final <a href="https://thestrangeloop.com/">Strange Loop</a> is coming up this September. Ivan and Jimmy will both be there, though—late breaking news—neither of them will be giving a talk. (“Rocket Rules” apply, if you know what that is.) [Will anyone actually know what “Rocket Rules” is? Will they search for it? That would be sort of embarrassing for me.]
</li>
<li>
If Ivan were to give a programming talk, getting some <a href="https://ivanish.ca/a-d/">flood-contaminated gear</a> from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation">DEC</a> or a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-11">PDP-11</a> to use as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staging_(theatre,_film,_television)">staging / set dressing</a> might be a challenge. [Yay, another retread of my personal history. Maybe instead of dredging up my past I should be the sort of person who makes new things, like, ever.]
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJRjomY6xyc">Meowmeowbeenz</a> [Gah this show hasn’t aged well. At least I’m sticking to the whole “high-brow + low-brow” personal identity by including the reference to it. [Is “meta” low-brow at this point?]]
</li>
<li>
There’s lots of talk about esolangs (esoteric programming languages), so it’s worth linking the <a href="https://esolangs.org/">Esolang Wiki</a>. [I worry that we spent too much time focusing on surface syntax. Jimmy tried to get us to talk about the beautifully-weird semantics within INTERCAL, but we never fully went there. I’m sure some people will complain about this lack of depth. Not looking forward to that.]
</li>
<li>
In particular, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck">Brainfuck</a>, which Jimmy adorably refers to as “BF” because he’s a polite gentleman and Ivan is 2% South Park. [Laughing at my own joke.]
</li>
<li>
Also, <a href="https://esolangs.org/wiki/Shakespeare">Shakespeare</a> and Shakespeare: <a href="https://archive.org/details/macbethtragedy00shak_0/page/42/mode/2up?ref=ol&amp;view=theater&amp;q=vaulting">vaulting ambition</a>, <a href="https://archive.org/details/macbethtragedy00shak_0/page/114/mode/2up?ref=ol&amp;view=theater&amp;q=%22Out%2C+damned+fpot%3B+out%2C+I+fay%22">Out, damned spot</a>, both from the Scottish play (you don’t know where I am, don’t @ me). [Why are these in the show notes? Am I trying to signal some sort of theatre-literacy? Who cares?]
</li>
<li>
“<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMEFROM">COMEFROM</a> was eventually implemented in the C-INTERCAL variant of the esoteric programming language INTERCAL” [Considering that this was such a non-element in the original paper, it’s weird that it became such a cornerstone of the episode. “What if we recreated the spirit of the paper in the podcast itself” is a tall order, so I guess we did what we could with what we had. Also, I bet someone is going to object that the paper and language aren’t actually very meta, especially not multiple layers deep, to which I’ll reply: we all bring the flavour of our mouth to the soup we taste.]
</li>
<li>
<a href="http://www.zachtronics.com/exapunks/">Exapunks</a>… <a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/056">Yeah!</a> [Speaking of things that haven’t aged well… woof. I like our newer episodes better. Especially this one. THAT’S JUST BAIT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WILL COMPLAIN THAT THIS SHOW HAS GONE OFF THE RAILS, PLEASE DO CONTINUE TO LISTEN TO THE SHOW.]
</li>
<li>
Our tier list was created in <a href="https://www.tldraw.com/">tldraw</a>, because it’s the best. [I wish someone applied Steve-and-co’s eye for detail to a visual programming tool. I wish I had time.]
</li>
<li>
The excellent <a href="https://adventofcomputing.com/">Advent of Computing</a> podcast did an <a href="https://adventofcomputing.com/?guid=5d5dc806-ddd9-4f99-aae3-76cadca1ad9f">episode on INTERCAL</a>. (Aside: the AoC website seems a bit busted in non-Chrome browsers, so here’s a backup <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCIF44AqkEA">YouTube link</a>, but you can also just search for Advent of Computing in your podcast player of choice.) [AoC is the exception that proves the rule: there are no high-quality programming podcasts. They all seem so low-effort, made by people who don’t respect the listener’s time and attention. Or they’re aping the high-budget NPR style, with no personality. Also, audio quality is all over the map. Also, just the worst garbage ads and theme music, all of them! I wonder if it’s just a cost-benefit time/energy tradeoff, or maybe people don’t know how to do better? I wonder what we could do to help raise the bar, without opening ourselves up to a bunch of “well I don’t like your podcast either” presumed competitiveness.]
</li>
<li>
The video <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4OIcwt8vcE">Screens in Screens in Screens</a> is fantastic, and the sort of thing that <a href="https://www.patreon.com/todepond">deserves our support</a>. Also, Lu Wilson (the human behind TodePond) has their own programming language that will not be named on podcasts, <a href="https://github.com/TodePond/DreamBerd">DreamBerd</a>, which uses the ! to great effect. [Meta-commentary intentionally left blank.]
</li>
</ul>
Some of the music featured in this episode:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSJeHDlhYls">All Caps</a> by MF DOOM and Madlib [I don’t even like it when other podcasts include music clips, but then away I go needle-dropping like I’ve got something to prove.]</li>
<li>Various songs from Ivan’s old albums. [I need to update my website. I need to tweak my static site generator. I need to redesign all the CSS. I need to consider putting all my projects into a database so I can generate nicer indexes. I also need to make some new projects — especially music.]</li>
</ul>
Get in touch, ask us questions, send us the sound of your knuckles cracking:
<ul>
<li>Ivan: <a href="https://mastodon.social/@spiralganglion">Mastodon</a> • <a href="mailto:admin@futureofcoding.org?subject=Question%20from%20an%20FoC%20Listener">Email</a> [If you don’t have something nice to say, know that I’m very sensitive and nurse wounds for a long time. Also, Nurse With Wound is great.]</li>
<li>Jimmy: <a href="https://hachyderm.io/@jimmyhmiller">Mastodon</a> • <a href="https://twitter.com/jimmyhmiller">Twitter</a> [Jimmy doesn’t write these notes so I don’t know what he’s thinking, but I can imagine: a horse galloping in the wind, Jimmy riding shirtless on the horse, Jimmy holding a gigantic tome of philosophical wisdom in one hand, the other outstretched before him, words of revelation flowing from his mouth like honey, “Ivan, the setup to this joke was lame”]</li>
<li>Or just DM us in the <a href="https://futureofcoding.org/community">FoC Slack</a>. [&lt;3]</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/064">https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/064</a>

De-Nerding Programming: Jonathan Edwards

In 1 playlist(s)

Future of Coding

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips