Unlurker|Replay|About
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Principles of Slack Maximalism (aelerinya.substack.com)
"There's a particular ideology uniting the [Inkhaven] bloggers involved that isn't actually declared on the page" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44819849
•
ok but what does this have to do with anything? (really asking)
I took it seriously and wrote up the reply that came from my gut: https://substack.com/@zackmaril/note/c-185137941 Why does one really need a slack channel to ask people if they want to go for a walk? Why not walk around and ask people if they want to take a walk?
•
Remote team?
•
Do remote teams take walks together ;)
It seems serious. I can only imagine it’s referring to a pretty small company. I suppose it can be tempting to do everything with one tool. I’ve seen some slack maximalism before, like using Slack as a primary operations platform - sending alerts and so forth to it, and nowhere else. But then that company hired a real engineering manager.
•
im not sure what you mean - bigger companies also use the slack maximalist approach.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
What even is "literate programming"? (pqnelson.github.io)
•
Maybe I am weird, but I would like to see/program in a formal, yet fuzzy/modal language, which could serve as a metalanguage that describes (documents) the program. This metalanguage must have some kind of constructs to describe unknown things, or things that are deliberately simplified in favor of exposition. So basically eschew natural language completely in favor of fully formalized description, that could be manipulated programmatically. However, I don't know what this metalanguage should be. I don't know how to translate typical comments (or a literate program) into some sort of formal language. I think we have a gap in philosophy (epistemology).
•
Maybe it will be unpopular opinion but if your idea has to be explained after 50 years in a blog post maybe it was not that good after all. Or maybe idea was good but state of the tools and culture of your field is not best place to implement it, like the blog post ask: what tool you would use for literate programming? Or you need to write a tool for literate programming first? For me it sounds bit like runnable python notebook, which is great for DevOps stuff but not really for developing financial system. And I do not want to start about lack of tests as author states.
Couple things that helped me understand literate programming: - A literate program has code and documentation interleaved in one file. - Weaving means extracting documentation and turning it into e.g. a pdf. - Tangling means extracting code in a form that is understandable to a compiler. A crucial thing to actually make this paradigm useful is the ability to change around the order of your code snippets, i.e. not letting the compiler dictate order. This enables you to code top-down/bottom-up how ever you see fit, like the article mentioned. My guess on why people soured on literate programming is that their first introduction involved using tools that didn't have this ability (e.g. jupyter notebooks). Also, you usually lose a lot of IDE features: no go-to-definition, bad auto-complete, etc. IMO, the best tool that qualifies for proper literate programming is probably org-mode with org-babel. It's programming language agnostic, supports syntax highlighting and noWEB for changing around order. Of course it requires getting into the Emacs ecosystem, so it's destined to stay obscure.
•
I’d guess that tools like Doxygen and Apple docc are probably the most obvious examples of documentation extraction. I’ve written code for many years, with Doxygen/Jazzy/docc in mind (still do[0]). I feel that it’s a big help. [0] https://littlegreenviper.com/leaving-a-legacy/
 Top