Over the last two weeks I had a suprise trip to Boston to meet with other researchers in this space. In preperation for the event, I spent most of the last two weeks building the WoofJS Workflow prototype.

Notes here: http://futureofcoding.org/episodes/6-research-recap-three.html

Over the last two weeks I had a suprise trip to Boston to meet with other researchers in this space. In preperation for the event, I spent most of the last two weeks building the WoofJS Workflow prototype.
Notes here:&nbsp;<a href="http://futureofcoding.org/episodes/6-research-recap-three.html">http://futureofcoding.org/episodes/6-research-recap-three.html</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

Research Recap Three (WoofJS Workflow)

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>

INTERCAL by Donald Woods & James Lyon

Out of the Tar Pit is in the grand pantheon of great papers, beloved the world over, with just so much influence. The resurgence of Functional Programming over the past decade owes its very existence to the Tar Pit’s snarling takedown of mutable state, championed by Hickey & The Cloj-Co. Many a budding computational philosophizer — both of yours truly counted among them — have been led onward to the late great Bro86 by this paper’s borrow of his essence and accident. But is the paper actually good? Like, really — is it that good? Does it hold up to the blinding light of hindsight that 2023 offers? Is this episode actually an April Fools joke, or is it a serious episode that Ivan just delayed by a few weeks because of life circumstances and his own incoherent sense of humour? I can’t tell.

Apologies in advance. Next time, we’re going back to our usual format to discuss Intercal.

Links


Before anything else, we need to link to Simple Made Easy. If you don’t know, now you know! It’s a talk by Rich Hickey (creator of Clojure) that, as best as I can tell, widely popularized discussion of simplicity and complexity in programming, using Hickey’s own definitions that built upon the Tar Pit paper. Ignited by this talk, with flames fanned by a few others, as functional programming flared in popularity through the 2010s, the words “simple”, “easy”, “complex”, and “reason about” became absolutely raging memes.


We also frequently reference Fred Brooks and his No Silver Bullet. Our previous episode has you covered.


The two great languages of the early internet era: Perl & TcL


For more on Ivan’s “BLTC paradise-engineering wombat chocolate”, see our episode on Augmenting Human Intellect, if you dare.


For more on Jimmy’s “Satoshi”, see Satoshi Nakamoto, of course.


And for Anonymous, go on.


Enemy of the State — This film slaps.


“Some people prefer not to commingle the functional, lambda-calculus part of a language with the parts that do side effects. It seems they believe in the separation of Church and state.” — Guy Steele


“my tempo”


FoC Challenge: Brooks claimed 4 evils lay at the heart of programming — Complexity, Conformity, Changeability, and Invisibility. Could you design a programming that had a different set of four evils at the heart of it? (Bonus: one of which could encompass the others and become the ur-evil)


The paper introduces something called Functional Relational Programming, abbreviated FRP. Note well, and do not be confused, that there is a much more important and common term that also abbreviates to FRP: Family Resource Program. Slightly less common, but yet more important and relevant to our interests as computer scientists, is the Fluorescence Recovery Protein in cyanobacteria. Less abundant, but again more relevant, is Fantasy Role-Playing, a technology with which we’ve all surely developed a high degree of expertise. For fans of international standards, see ISO 639-3 — the Franco-Provençal language, represented by language code frp. As we approach the finality of this paragraph, I’ll crucially point out that “FRP”, when spoken aloud all at once at though it were a word, sounds quite like the word frp, which isn’t actually a word — you’ve fallen right into my trap. Least importantly of all, and also most obscurely, and with only minor interest or relevance to listeners of the podcast and readers of this paragraph, we have the Functional Reactive Programming paradigm originally coined by Conor Oberst and then coopted by rapscallions who waste time down by the pier playing marbles.


FoC Challenge: Can you come up with a programming where informal reasoning doesn’t help? Where you are lost, you are without hope, and you need to get some kind of help other than reasoning to get through it?
Linear B
LinearB
Intercal


Esolangs
FoC Challenge: Can you come up with a kind of testing where using a particular set of inputs does tell you something about the system/component when it is given a different set of inputs?


It was notEpimenides who said “You can’t dip your little toesies into the same stream” two times — presumably because he only said it once.


Zig has a nicely explicit approach to memory allocation.


FoC Challenge: A programming where more things are explicit — building on the example of Zig’s explicit allocators.


Non-ergonomic, Non-von Neumann, Nonagon Infinity
One of Ivan’s favourite musical acts of the 00s is the ever-shapeshifting Animal Collective — of course 🙄. If you’ve never heard of them, the best album to start with is probably the avant-pop Feels, though their near-breakthrough was the loop-centric Merriweather Post Pavilion, and Ivan’s personal favourite is, as of this writing, the tender psychedelic folk of Prospect Hummer.

Jimmy’s Philosophy Corner
To learn more about possible worlds (“not all possibilities are possible”), take a look at the SEP articles on Possible Worlds, Modal Logic, Varieties of Modality, and the book Naming and Necessity by Saul Kripke.


For more on abstract objects (“do programs exist? do numbers exist?”), see the SEPs on Platonism in Metaphysics, Nominalism in Metaphysics, and the paper titled A Theory of Properties by Peter van Inwagen.

Music featured in this episode:
Jimmy’s Philosophy Corner got a new stinger. No link, sorry. Why does this feel like a changelog?

Get in touch, ask us questions, send us old family recipes:
Ivan: Mastodon • Email
Jimmy: Mastodon • Twitter
Or just DM us in the FoC Slack.

https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/063

<a href="https://moss.cs.iit.edu/cs100/papers/out-of-the-tar-pit.pdf">Out of the Tar Pit</a> is in the grand pantheon of great papers, beloved the world over, with just so much influence. The resurgence of Functional Programming over the past decade owes its very existence to the Tar Pit’s snarling takedown of mutable state, championed by Hickey &amp; The Cloj-Co. Many a budding computational philosophizer — both of yours truly counted among them — have been led onward to the late great <a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/062">Bro86</a> by this paper’s borrow of his essence and accident. But is the paper actually good? Like, really — is it that good? Does it hold up to the blinding light of hindsight that 2023 offers? Is this episode actually an April Fools joke, or is it a serious episode that Ivan just delayed by a few weeks because of life circumstances and his own incoherent sense of humour? I can’t tell.
Apologies in advance. Next time, we’re going back to our usual format to discuss <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERCAL">Intercal</a>.
Links<a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/063#links" aria-label="Anchor" data-anchorjs-icon=""></a>
<ul>
<li>
Before anything else, we need to link to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxdOUGdseq4">Simple Made Easy</a>. If you don’t know, now you know! It’s a talk by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Hickey">Rich Hickey</a> (creator of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clojure">Clojure</a>) that, as best as I can tell, widely popularized discussion of simplicity and complexity in programming, using Hickey’s own definitions that built upon the Tar Pit paper. Ignited by this talk, with flames fanned by a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cym4TZwTCNU">few others</a>, as functional programming flared in popularity through the 2010s, the words “simple”, “easy”, “complex”, and “reason about” became absolutely raging memes.
</li>
<li>
We also frequently reference Fred Brooks and his No Silver Bullet. <a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/062">Our previous episode</a> has you covered.
</li>
<li>
The two great languages of the early internet era: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perl">Perl</a> &amp; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tcl">TcL</a>
</li>
<li>
For more on Ivan’s “BLTC paradise-engineering wombat chocolate”, see our episode on <a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/056">Augmenting Human Intellect</a>, if you dare.
</li>
<li>
For more on Jimmy’s “Satoshi”, see <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto">Satoshi Nakamoto</a>, of course.
</li>
<li>
And for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(hacker_group)">Anonymous</a>, go on.
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_State_(film)">Enemy of the State</a> — This film slaps.
</li>
<li>
“Some people prefer not to commingle the functional, lambda-calculus part of a language with the parts that do side effects. It seems they believe in the separation of Church and state.” — <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_L._Steele_Jr.">Guy Steele</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDAsABdkWSc">“my tempo”</a>
</li>
<li>
FoC Challenge: Brooks claimed 4 evils lay at the heart of programming — Complexity, Conformity, Changeability, and Invisibility. Could you design a programming that had a different set of four evils at the heart of it? (Bonus: one of which could encompass the others and become the ur-evil)
</li>
<li>
The paper introduces something called Functional Relational Programming, abbreviated FRP. Note well, and do not be confused, that there is a much more important and common term that also abbreviates to FRP: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resource_program">Family Resource Program</a>. Slightly less common, but yet more important and relevant to our interests as computer scientists, is the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence_recovery_protein">Fluorescence Recovery Protein</a> in cyanobacteria. Less abundant, but again more relevant, is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game">Fantasy Role-Playing</a>, a technology with which we’ve all surely developed a high degree of expertise. For fans of international standards, see ISO 639-3 — the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Proven%C3%A7al">Franco-Provençal</a> language, represented by language code frp. As we approach the finality of this paragraph, I’ll crucially point out that “FRP”, when spoken aloud all at once at though it were a word, sounds quite like the word frp, which isn’t actually a word — you’ve fallen right into my trap. Least importantly of all, and also most obscurely, and with only minor interest or relevance to listeners of the podcast and readers of this paragraph, we have the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_reactive_programming">Functional Reactive Programming</a> paradigm originally coined by <a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/058">Conor Oberst</a> and then coopted by rapscallions who waste time down by the pier playing <a href="https://rxmarbles.com/">marbles</a>.
</li>
<li>
FoC Challenge: Can you come up with a programming where informal reasoning doesn’t help? Where you are lost, you are without hope, and you need to get some kind of help other than reasoning to get through it?
</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B">Linear B</a></li>
<li><a href="https://linearb.io/">LinearB</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTERCAL">Intercal</a></li>
<li>
<a href="https://esolangs.org/wiki/Main_Page">Esolangs</a>
</li>
<li>FoC Challenge: Can you come up with a kind of testing where using a particular set of inputs does tell you something about the system/component when it is given a different set of inputs?</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>
It was not <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epimenides">Epimenides</a> who said “You can’t dip your little toesies into the same stream” two times — presumably because he only said it once.
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://ziglang.org/">Zig</a> has a nicely explicit approach to memory allocation.
</li>
<li>
FoC Challenge: A programming where more things are explicit — building on the example of Zig’s explicit allocators.
</li>
<li>
Non-ergonomic, Non-von Neumann, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p_Si21ig7c">Nonagon Infinity</a>
</li>
<li>One of Ivan’s favourite musical acts of the 00s is the ever-shapeshifting <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Collective">Animal Collective</a> — of course 🙄. If you’ve never heard of them, the best album to start with is probably the avant-pop <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feels_(album)">Feels</a>, though their near-breakthrough was the loop-centric <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriweather_Post_Pavilion_(album)">Merriweather Post Pavilion</a>, and Ivan’s personal favourite is, as of this writing, the tender psychedelic folk of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_Hummer">Prospect Hummer</a>.</li>
</ul>
Jimmy’s Philosophy Corner
<ul>
<li>To learn more about possible worlds (“not all possibilities are possible”), take a look at the SEP articles on <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/">Possible Worlds</a>, <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/">Modal Logic</a>, <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modality-varieties/">Varieties of Modality</a>, and the book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Naming-Necessity-Saul-Kripke/dp/0631128018">Naming and Necessity</a> by Saul Kripke.</li>
<li>
For more on abstract objects (“do programs exist? do numbers exist?”), see the SEPs on <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/">Platonism in Metaphysics</a>, <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/">Nominalism in Metaphysics</a>, and the paper titled <a href="https://andrewmbailey.com/pvi/Theory_of_Properties.pdf">A Theory of Properties</a> by Peter van Inwagen.
</li>
</ul>
Music featured in this episode:
<ul>
<li>Jimmy’s Philosophy Corner got a new stinger. No link, sorry. Why does this feel like a changelog?</li>
</ul>
Get in touch, ask us questions, send us old family recipes:
<ul>
<li>Ivan: <a href="https://mastodon.social/@spiralganglion">Mastodon</a> • <a href="mailto:ivanreese@gmail.com?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>Or just DM us in the <a href="https://futureofcoding.org/community">FoC Slack</a>.</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/063">https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/063</a>

Out of the Tar Pit by Ben Moseley & Peter Marks

Jimmy and I have each read this paper a handful of times, and each time our impressions have flip-flopped between "hate it so much" and "damn that's good". There really are two sides to this one. Two reads, both fair, both worth discussing: one of them within "the frame", and one of them outside "the frame". So given that larger-than-normal surface for discursive traversal, it's no surprise that this episode is, just, like, intimidatingly long. This one is so, so long, friends. See these withered muscles and pale skin? That's how much time I spent in Ableton Live this month. I just want to see my family.

No matter how you feel about Brooks, our thorough deconstruction down to the nuts and bolts of this seminal classic will leave you holding a ziplock bag full of cool air and wondering to yourself, "Wait, this is philosophy? And this is the future we were promised? Well, I guess I'd better go program a computer now before it's too late and I never exist."

For the next episode, we're reading a fish wearing a bathrobe.

Sorry, it's late and I'm sick, and I have to write something, you know?

Links:


Fred Brooks also wrote the Mythical Man-Month, which we considered also discussing on this episode but thank goodness we didn't.


Also, Fred Brooks passed away recently. We didn't mention it on the show, but it's worth remarking upon. RIP, and thanks for fighting the good fight, Fred. I still think you're wrong about spatial programming, but Jimmy agrees with you, so you can probably rest easy since between the two of us he's definitely the more in touch with the meaning of life.


The Oxide and Friends podcast recorded an episode of predictions.


Jimmy’s Aphantasia motivates some of his desire for FoC tools.


Don’t miss the previous episode on Peter Naur’s Programming as Theory Building, since Ivan references it whilst digging his own grave.


Jimmy uses Muse for his notes, so he can highlight important things in two colors — yes, two colors at the same time. Living in the future.


For the Shadow of the Colossus link, here’s an incredible speedrun of the game. Skip to 10:20-ish for a great programming is like standing on the shoulders of a trembling giant moment.


Mu is a project by Kartik Agaram, in which he strips computing down to the studs and rebuilds it with a more intentional design. “Running the code you want to run, and nothing else.”


“Is it a good-bad movie, a bad-bad movie, or a movie you kinda liked?”


Ivan did some research. Really wish Marco and Casey didn't let him.


Jimmy did an attack action so as to be rid of Brook’s awful invisibility nonsense. Awful.


As promised, here’s a link in the show notes to something something Brian Cantrill, Moore’s Law, Bryan Adams, something something.


Dynamicland, baby!


Here’s just one example of the racist, sexist results that current AI tools produce when you train them on the internet. Garbage in, garbage out — a real tar pit. AI tools aren’t for deciding what to say; at best, they’ll help with how to say it.


Gray Crawford is one of the first people I saw posting ML prompts what feels like an eternity ago, back when the results all looked like blurry goop but like… blurry goop with potential.


Not sure of a good link for Jimmy’s reference that Age of Empires II used expert systems for the AI, but here’s a video that talks about the AI in the game and even shows some Lisp code.


Idris is a language that has a bit of an “automatic programming” feel.


The visual programming that shall not be named.


When people started putting massive numbers of transistors into a single chip (eg: CPU, RAM, etc) they called that process Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI). Also, remember that scene in the first episode of Halt and Catch Fire when the hunky Steve Jobs-looking guy said "VLSI" to impress the girl from the only good episode of Black Mirror? I'm still cringing.


Sally Haslanger is a modern day philosopher and feminist who works with accident and essence despite their problematic past.

Music featured in this episode:
Never, a song I wrote and recorded on Tuesday after finally cleaning my disgusting wind organ. It was like Hollow Knight in there.

Get in touch, ask us questions, send us old family recipes:
Ivan: Mastodon • Email
Jimmy: Mastodon • Twitter
Or just DM us in the FoC Slack.

futureofcoding.org/episodes/062

Jimmy and I have each read <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet">this paper</a> a handful of times, and each time our impressions have flip-flopped between "hate it so much" and "damn that's good". There really are two sides to this one. Two reads, both fair, both worth discussing: one of them within "the frame", and one of them outside "the frame". So given that larger-than-normal surface for discursive traversal, it's no surprise that this episode is, just, like, intimidatingly long. This one is so, so long, friends. See these withered muscles and pale skin? That's how much time I spent in Ableton Live this month. I just want to see my family.
No matter how you feel about Brooks, our thorough deconstruction down to the nuts and bolts of this seminal classic will leave you holding a ziplock bag full of cool air and wondering to yourself, "Wait, this is philosophy? And this is the future we were promised? Well, I guess I'd better go program a computer now before it's too late and I never exist."
For the next episode, we're reading <a href="https://moss.cs.iit.edu/cs100/papers/out-of-the-tar-pit.pdf">a fish wearing a bathrobe</a>.
Sorry, it's late and I'm sick, and I have to write something, you know?
Links:
<ul>
<li>
Fred Brooks also wrote the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month">Mythical Man-Month</a>, which we considered also discussing on this episode but thank goodness we didn't.
</li>
<li>
Also, Fred Brooks passed away recently. We didn't mention it on the show, but it's worth remarking upon. RIP, and thanks for fighting the good fight, Fred. I still think you're wrong about spatial programming, but Jimmy agrees with you, so you can probably rest easy since between the two of us he's definitely the more in touch with the meaning of life.
</li>
<li>
The <a href="https://oxide.computer/podcasts/oxide-and-friends">Oxide and Friends</a> podcast recorded an <a href="https://oxide.computer/podcasts/oxide-and-friends/1166714">episode of predictions</a>.
</li>
<li>
Jimmy’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia">Aphantasia</a> motivates some of his desire for FoC tools.
</li>
<li>
Don’t miss the <a href="/episodes/061">previous episode</a> on Peter Naur’s Programming as Theory Building, since Ivan references it whilst digging his own grave.
</li>
<li>
Jimmy uses <a href="https://museapp.com/">Muse</a> for his notes, so he can highlight important things in two colors — yes, two colors at the same time. Living in the future.
</li>
<li>
For the Shadow of the Colossus link, here’s an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&amp;v=2aLZH4ti-Hc">incredible speedrun</a> of the game. Skip to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aLZH4ti-Hc&amp;t=620s">10:20</a>-ish for a great programming is like standing on the shoulders of a trembling giant moment.
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://github.com/akkartik/mu">Mu</a> is a project by <a href="http://akkartik.name/">Kartik Agaram</a>, in which he strips computing down to the studs and rebuilds it with a more intentional design. “Running the code you want to run, and nothing else.”
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flop_House">“Is it a good-bad movie, a bad-bad movie, or a movie you kinda liked?”</a>
</li>
<li>
Ivan did some <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/">research</a>. Really wish Marco and Casey didn't let him.
</li>
<li>
Jimmy did an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game">attack action</a> so as to be rid of Brook’s awful invisibility nonsense. Awful.
</li>
<li>
As promised, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM9h89Vo_Qo">here’s a link</a> in <a href="/episodes/062">the show notes</a> to something something Brian Cantrill, Moore’s Law, <a href="https://youtu.be/U8JUueSakiA?t=128">Bryan Adams</a>, something something.
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://dynamicland.org/">Dynamicland</a>, baby!
</li>
<li>
Here’s <a href="https://twitter.com/spiantado/status/1599462375887114240">just one example of the racist, sexist results</a> that current AI tools produce when you train them on the internet. Garbage in, garbage out — a real tar pit. AI tools aren’t for deciding what to say; at best, they’ll help with how to say it.
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.graycrawford.com/">Gray Crawford</a> is one of the first people I saw posting ML prompts what feels like an eternity ago, back when the results all looked like blurry goop but like… blurry goop with potential.
</li>
<li>
Not sure of a good link for Jimmy’s reference that Age of Empires II used expert systems for the AI, but <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S1CkfzEHSU">here’s a video</a> that talks about the AI in the game and even shows some Lisp code.
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://www.idris-lang.org/">Idris</a> is a language that has a bit of an “automatic programming” feel.
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://ivanish.ca/hest-podcast/">The visual programming that shall not be named.</a>
</li>
<li>
When people started putting massive numbers of transistors into a single chip (eg: CPU, RAM, etc) they called that process <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Scale_Integration">Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI)</a>. Also, remember that scene in the first episode of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_and_Catch_Fire_(TV_series)">Halt and Catch Fire</a> when the hunky Steve Jobs-looking guy said <a href="https://youtu.be/A1390o5FgHU?t=21">"VLSI"</a> to impress the girl from <a href="https://www.polygon.com/2016/10/28/13452942/black-mirror-season-3-san-junipero-ending">the only good episode</a> of Black Mirror? I'm still cringing.
</li>
<li>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Haslanger">Sally Haslanger</a> is a modern day philosopher and feminist who works with accident and essence despite their problematic past.
</li>
</ul>
Music featured in this episode:
<ul>
<li><a href="https://ivanish.ca/never">Never</a>, a song I wrote and recorded on Tuesday after finally cleaning my disgusting wind organ. It was like <a href="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ox6D7yUszcc/maxresdefault.jpg">Hollow Knight</a> in there.</li>
</ul>
Get in touch, ask us questions, send us old family recipes:
<ul>
<li>Ivan: <a href="https://mastodon.social/@spiralganglion">Mastodon</a> • <a href="mailto:ivanreese@gmail.com?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>Or just DM us in the <a href="https://futureofcoding.org/community">FoC Slack</a>.</li>
</ul>
<a href="https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/062">futureofcoding.org/episodes/062</a>

Research Recap Three (WoofJS Workflow)

In 1 playlist(s)

Future of Coding

Social links

Follow podcast

Recent clips