marianoguerra / future-of-coding-weekly

repository to work on future of coding weekly newsletter
https://tinyletter.com/marianoguerra/
32 stars 3 forks source link

Future of Coding Weekly 2022/08 Week 3 #147

Closed marianoguerra closed 2 years ago

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago
marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

🛸 Composable Visual Exploration 👓 Spatial Interface 🐢 Self-modifying Text Editor 💼 Excel is Pretty Dang Cool

Two Minute Week

🎥 Week 32 via Peter Saxton

🧵 conversation

Good evening, I've added concurrency to my interpreted runtime.

I have previously been compiling to JS and using FFI to a layer underneath for my universal apps. but that was not giving enough control.

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

💬 yeT

🧵 conversation

A quick video explanation of the tool Jake and I built

🎥 Screen Recording

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

Our Work

💻 glitch.com/~zoa-playground via yeT

🧵 conversation

built a little thing with my friend Jake, glitch.com/~zoa-playground try pressing the letters on your keyboard, clicking on the little blocks (zoa), and connecting the Zoa together! I’d love to hear about what you find, code is up on glitch if you want to remix/make new zoa, be warned it’s pretty hacky p5 rn

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

🎥 Data Rabbit - Alpha 1, Quick Intro / Overview (cljs-only version) via Ryan Robitaille

🧵 conversation

Thumbnail

Hey all! I want to present the first Alpha release of a project of mine that I've been working on for quite some time - Data Rabbit. It is a flow-based Clojure(script) live-coding eval/REPL canvas for "composable" visual exploration, experimentation, and data observability (yeah, that's a mouthful).

Conceptually, it's a a remix of a number of different ideas. Think: Notebook + Whiteboard + Lighttable (with some Smalltalk, Hypercard, Bret Victor & 70s Flow-based Programming influences thrown in). ;)

Basically, think of it like this... it allows the chaining (the "flow") of arbitrary ClojureScript eval & Clojure nREPL "blocks" that can also compose together into single (and recursive) views - with a heavy focus on visualizing the "data context" of the block's edges. Combine that with some handy "scrubbing" and editor eval features, and basic code generation helpers for common tasks - and I think it's pretty interesting (but hey, I'm biased).

It's meant to run on your local machine and saves all flows as flat EDN files. However, the website (datarabbit.com) is running a special public version that ONLY has CLJS blocks & some fun small examples - but allows loading and saving flow files to/from your browser. So you can play around w/o downloading or running anything (no signing up or logging in - just start hacking). You won't have any of the cool CLJ nREPL block features, but you'll be able to get the general idea hopefully.

The interface is fairly involved at first glance so please do watch the video before you dive in. I made one video explaining the website hosted version (this one here) where I run though the basic features & controls. There is a second video going up later this week where I go through every part of the self-hosted server version in detail, with a full slide deck, including some neat examples (dashboarding, CLJ nREPs, tech.ml.dataset, incanter, canvas drawing, etc).

As I said - it's literally "Alpha 1 / Public Release 1" so there are bound to be many bugs, UI polish issues, and general wonkiness (although I'm fixing them as I encounter them).

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

Thinking Together

📝 Reddit’s database has two tables via Steve Dekorte

🧵 conversation

I thought this HN post on databases might be relevant to the future of coding

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

📝 How Committees Invent via Orion Reed

🧵 conversation

I'm quite sceptical of apps/software as the best way of structuring computing. I don’t pretend to know which alternatives would be better (and like to think there doesn’t need to be a single answer) but the explanations for the success of software and the failure of alternatives always seemed pretty underwhelming, often leaning on the fact that software did succeed as proof of its own . However , finding an argument to be weak isn’t really an explanation, even if it suggests the need for one.

Recently I was wondering if there is explanatory power in “Conways Law” if applied to large socio-technical systems. Conway was thinking about the internal structure of software as produced within an organisation in How Committees Invent. The paper has much more nuance, but the adage roughly states:

Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure

If we apply this line of thinking to computation at large, we might ask questions on the impact of communication mechanisms inherent to capitalism and their structuring effect on the computing landscape. This maps quite well to software, as there is often a correspondence between software production and individual firms. We might imagine a different economy (e.g. some highly federated, anarchist society) and think of what the organisation of computing might look like. This is something I think is interesting to explore on its own, but it lead to a different idea I find quite compelling:

That the success of software is a result of a drive to make computing economically “legible” to capitalism.

(I’m appropriating legibility here from James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State)

This makes some sense as an explanation for software, but it might also offer a new explanation for things like app stores among others.

[This is a slightly rehashed line of thinking I passed around at work that I thought might be interesting to this crowd. This isn’t thought through, so just read it as casual speculation. But I do think we need an explanation, if we are ever to move beyond this current way of interacting with digital systems]

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

💬 Ivan Lugo

🧵 conversation

Hey all! I’m looking for a bit of help solving (what I think is) a really simple problem, but I just can’t seem to find someone - or the right article - to help me figure it out. It’s a simple graphics vector problem, and my inexperience in the space is doing me no favors in abstracting the problem to do the right maths. Does anyone here happen to know a good place to ask technical questions in that space, or, would anyone happen to know of friendly soul(s) with time to walk through the issue? StackOverflow and the dregs from days of search engine digging is chock full of answers that revolve around but don’t tackle exactly what I need, and the one solution I have found doesn’t seem to apply to my current state of code.

I consider help like this of the highest form of validation and “raising up”, and would happily compensate said helper or producer of article in any reasonably requested way ❤

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

Content

🐦 Tweet from @softspaceninja via Jack Rusher

🧵 conversation

Of possible interest at the intersection of TFT and FoC:

🐦 Yiliu Shen-Burke 沈奕流 🇺🇦: @SoftspaceHQ Prototype04 is here!

This prototype explores how a spatial interface can let you better work with the true shape of your ideas.

Yes, I think ideas have shapes, and that their shape matters. 👀👇🧵

Tweet Thumbnail

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

📝 Rob Pike’s simple C regex matcher in Go via Shubhadeep Roychowdhury

🧵 conversation

Rob Pike’s simple C regex matcher in Go

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

🐦 Tweet from @lexaloffle via Scott Anderson

🧵 conversation

Picotron (upcoming programming environment from the creator of Pico8) demonstrating live editing the text editor in real time

🐦 zep.p8: Using the #picotron code editor to edit itself.

Tweet Thumbnail

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

📝 Excel is Pretty Dang Cool via Kartik Agaram

🧵 conversation

Justifiably breathless

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

🎥 John Carmack: Doom, Quake, VR, AGI, Programming, Video Games, and Rockets | Lex Fridman Podcast #309 via Hamish Todd

🧵 conversation

Thumbnail

John Carmack interview.

He's talking about the creative ambitions for Doom as opposed to Wolfenstein. He uses the phrase "Turing complete design space", saying that Doom had one, whereas Wolfenstein didn't.

It's not super hard to see what he means. Mathematically it probably doesn't correspond to any useful concept, but maybe it does? If so, what?

marianoguerra commented 2 years ago

https://tinyletter.com/marianoguerra/letters/future-of-coding-weekly-2022-08-week-3