Comments on: Code Literacy http://blog.kevburnsjr.com/code-literacy Web Application Engineer Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:08:36 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: KevBurnsJr http://blog.kevburnsjr.com/code-literacy/comment-page-1#comment-1936 KevBurnsJr Mon, 08 Jun 2009 02:22:47 +0000 http://blog.kevburnsjr.com/?p=274#comment-1936 For two machines compiling a body of code, the input(code/instructions) and output(behavior) can be very similar for each machine. We could similarly construct an experiment in which a human were given an input(instructions) and we obseved the output(behavior). If the instructions were simple (take off your left shoe) we might find the exhibited behavior to be rather similar amongst multiple subjects. But as the instructions become more complex, errors will inevitably arise. The errors that arise are undoubtedly the result of past experience. By no fault of the instructions, the instructions are interpreted differently by different people. As you say, everyone is different. So then it follows that in creating the instructions sent to the computer, we have communicated something which is closer to what we really mean. In this mode of communication, our thought patterns are tuned to express the exhibited behavior in a manner that is more readily actionable. Without the past experience of the subject to take into account, it is the nature of the synthetic language to be agnostic to idiosyncrasies and common errors in thought. Whereas in natural language we are bluntly spouting bubbles of emotional inspiration as they flitter by, the form of code requires a far more disciplined mode of communication. It is not possible to blackmail one's computer into functioning as expected. For two machines compiling a body of code, the input(code/instructions) and output(behavior) can be very similar for each machine. We could similarly construct an experiment in which a human were given an input(instructions) and we obseved the output(behavior). If the instructions were simple (take off your left shoe) we might find the exhibited behavior to be rather similar amongst multiple subjects. But as the instructions become more complex, errors will inevitably arise. The errors that arise are undoubtedly the result of past experience. By no fault of the instructions, the instructions are interpreted differently by different people. As you say, everyone is different.

So then it follows that in creating the instructions sent to the computer, we have communicated something which is closer to what we really mean. In this mode of communication, our thought patterns are tuned to express the exhibited behavior in a manner that is more readily actionable.

Without the past experience of the subject to take into account, it is the nature of the synthetic language to be agnostic to idiosyncrasies and common errors in thought. Whereas in natural language we are bluntly spouting bubbles of emotional inspiration as they flitter by, the form of code requires a far more disciplined mode of communication.

It is not possible to blackmail one’s computer into functioning as expected.

]]> By: mom http://blog.kevburnsjr.com/code-literacy/comment-page-1#comment-1933 mom Thu, 04 Jun 2009 07:58:48 +0000 http://blog.kevburnsjr.com/?p=274#comment-1933 Not sure where that leaves human nature, which is amorphous. Perception is reality and everyone's is different. It has to be, no two views of one thing can ever be the same. So what is closer to meaning? "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Not sure where that leaves human nature, which is amorphous. Perception is reality and everyone’s is different. It has to be, no two views of one thing can ever be the same. So what is closer to meaning?

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

]]>