in this part, the set of aesthetic features, composed from both empirical observations and theoretical constructions, is re-examined in the light of the linguistic environments as provided by programming languages. after having elaborated a concept of clarity, I will see if and how programming languages modulate this concept. programming languages will be investigated both as semantic systems, but also as socio-economic systems. by seeing how discourses on clarity vary between programming languages communities, it will be possible to identify such a structural influence and integrate it within our concept of clarity.
turner, computational artifacts so in order to use those languages, we need some account of their intended meaning, which some argue must be mathematical in nature because: - it’s not ambiguous - they facilitate formal exploration without the cost of implementation - is a resort when the computational artefact (program, architecture) must be reasoned about on an abstract level (which it some point always ends up being a necessity) - allows for proof of correctness
Notions such as threading and synchronization are ambiguous! We need better conceptual understanding for a more exact formulation
basically programming languages are the child of concrete one one side (hardware can do anything) and abstract on the other (mathematics are highly specific)
this section explores the conceptual definition of a programming language (from a CS and philosophy standpoint), but also the role of language in aesthetics (comparison french vs. german, thomas mann avec ses verbes a la fin)
the question of operational meaning vs. denotational meaning should be explored. what means what to the computer?
[crozat_theorie_operationelle_ecriture_numerique]] -> a bit too high-level, bu](../readings/notes/crozat_theorie_operationelle_ecriture_numerique]] -> a bit too high-level, bu.md)nice concepts about digital writing/layerings of digital writing (binary-theoretical / technical-applicable/semiotical-rhetorical)
the fact that it’s abstract as hell can also be seen as a cultural influence/related to chomsly golumbia_cultural_logic_computation
milner_semantic_ideas_programming_languages stansifer_study_of_programming_languages homem_topics_in_programming_languages sustrik_linguistics_programming_languages turner_programming_languages_technical_artefacts
State introduces an abstract notion of time in programs. In functional programs, there is no notion of time… Functions do not change. In the real world, things are different. There are few real-world entities that have the timeless behaviour of functions. Organisms grows and learn. When the same stimulus is given to an organism at different times, the reaction will usually be different. How can we model this inside a program? We need to model an entity with a unique identity (its name) whose behaviour changes during the execution of the program. To do this, we add an abstract notion of time to the program. This abstract time is simply a sequence of values in time that has a single name. We call this sequence a named state.
ref: masterminds of programming
each of these sections will highlight both the paradigms as well as the syntactic features of the main categories of programming languages. the point will be to highlight what they share, and how they differ, and that what they share is a very core concept. how that concept is implemented however differs, which is inherently an aesthetic decision (as we will see with Ruby or Go for instance). this categorical approach will also necessarily include a historical dimension, as well as a discussion of which programming communities gravitate around which languages
programming paradigms - van roy, along with a helpful summary. most importants seem to be concepts of named state, records (structs, arrays), closure, independence (concurrency) (which supports shared-state or message passing).
Each paradigm has its own “soul” that can only be understood by actually using the paradigm. We recommend that you explore the paradigms by actually programming in them (van roy)
when we talk about esolangs, we are designing a perspective for someone to think through. -daniel temkin src
this section looks at how language-dependent the previously exhibited features of aesthetics might be affected by it. however, we’ll see that this isn’t so much a clear distinction as it is a gradient between fully language dependent (and the extreme: hardware dependent—hallo kittler).
procedural rhetoric is just a very high level of programming semantics. processes with meaning assigned to it. <- this further extends the gradient.
syntax vs. semantics?
There’s a lot of attention to COMPRESSION, using the underlying programming language in a way that’s easy to penetrate - richard gabriel src
whether or not the computer understands is not an aesthetic problem, but an engineering problem. BUT there are beauties in engineering
however, one would argue that a beauty for the computer is data locality, due to the very practical issue of data access (and subsequent caching)
language dependent features will be:
there could be different beauties in writing and in reading (case of Mike’s APL) - easier to read vs. easier to type
what is the aesthetic of a semantic system that is supposed to be understood by both humans and machines? if there is a collapse of both those systems, it hints at the fact that the human becomes machine
from hardware to tokens
when i talk about materiality, i should also contextualize it with other materialities (build processes, hardware, etc)
markers of spatialization:
- the trace (stack trace, execution trace) (like ariadne’s thread)
- localness [allamanis_survey_for_big_code_naturalness_language#patterns]](../readings/notes/ localness [allamanis_survey_for_big_code_naturalness_language#patterns].md)
- localness is syntactic, non-localness is semantics
- dangling else