First
Prev
Next
Last
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
–
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
–
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
/
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
/
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ANNO·​VICESIMO·​NONO·​DIE·​TRECENTESIMO·​QVINQVAGESIMO·​VITÆ·​POVYA
Paper Storage Ugrade

Today I found a new Leitz shelf out of luck. Now the mass-used papers have their own shelf, and I could dedicate the other one to plastic envelopes. It is a dream coming true that our home now has an almost infinite supply of paper in all colors.

OtherIdeasForHowTheKarySpaceShouldLook
Other Ideas For How The Kary Space Should Look

I’m trying to solve the long standing problem of things being represented in their own looks in the Kary Language. There are some prior art into making things like this; namely:

(A) The Glamorous Toolkit: \rightarrow How they have created the 'Anything can have their own views'. \hookrightarrow And actually have multiple views. (B) Wolfram Language \rightarrow How it has 'forms', the number forms and such. These are polymorphism on having views. \hookrightarrow How it actually has native representation in math itself.

Smalltalk: \rightarrow Everything is live and editable.

Now the work I have done on AnnotationsKit show that there are different forms of Layout. The work in Nota Language and Arendelle Language also show different things all of which are incoherent in the design of a language like this. So Imagine this:

\frac{1}{2} \times \sqrt{[a rectangle containing a horizontal slider UI component]} \leftarrow A slider component.

Imagine if you could combine so much that actually the slider could go inside of the radical notation. Basically you could have had it because based on its return type it could be there and work. Now this is possible to make with the experience I have in making Nota Language and AnnotationsKit ; but what should we do about the other cases of things that need more than a tree?

a figure showing the translation of a mathematical expression (1/2 times the square root of a slider) into an abstract syntax tree where the slider component is a leaf node

But what if I need to have a function? I guess that can happen in the old sense of having things like f(x) = ⎷x ] This would be easy to make.

But what if I needed to have connections? And higher order elements? How do we go about making things that are to edit the notation itself or create its components? I have also explored this in DesignTalk where by selecting an element the change UI would have appeared:

a drawing a circle being selected inside DesignTalk with the drawing like UI of design talk having been activated around the circle showing the size, repositioning options, and mutations that the human can apply to the circle

Now I imagine the same thing to be true for the UI elements there:

a drawing of a mathematical expression where a slider UI is under a radical, with an 'Other Options' popover menu branching off from it containing several placeholder boxes $\times \frac{1}{2}$ $\longleftarrow$ Imagine if you could have opened the box that let you choose different representations of a number? a row of four boxes showing different UI representations of the number 1: a plain digit '1', a slider/ruler view, a speedometer-style gauge, and a close-up ruler view
There you could have decided how must this look and I think this is GToolkit.

But then you would have something like a representation view of a data. How do you build that? How even do you go about making a code like this?

a drawing of a rectangle containing a diagonal line A canvas view showing a line $\left. \begin{array}{l} \text{How do you} \\ \text{create this?} \\ \text{or a class} \\ \text{notation for} \\ \text{this?} \end{array} \right\} \begin{array}{l} \text{What must} \\ \text{be the representation} \\ \text{of a class?} \end{array}$. FERMATA
OntheStructureofAVisualLanguage
On the Structure of A Visual Language

This is the part that has taken me much time to think about. How must the language work if it is visual?

Parts of the answer comes from Nota Language and part of it from Glamorous Toolkit. The problem is like this:

a vertical decorative line with diamonds and a spiral node, In Nota for example there are two things that a program's AST has: four-pointed star icon Representation $\rightarrow \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \times \pi$ bracketed as 'Representation' a four-pointed star icon Computation $\rightarrow = 12.345$ bracketed as 'Computation' $\vdash - - - - - - - - - - \dashv$ How do we combine the two of these?
  • Nota Language ’s answer to this primitive but effective: Classic Polymorphism. We take the parsed AST of a textual representation and make it into two separate views: A representation and a computation.

The beautiful thing in Nota Language is how the two things talk to each other. I don’t know how that can be beautifully put together. The other candidate is the Glamorous Toolkit. The interesting thing about this system is that it is alive and everything gets to have its own view. This best understood — in my view — as the polymorphism of having .toString() in other languages. But then remember that it can also be handling more than one representation with its <GtView> things.

  • In both of these systems; we have a factory format that representation must be derived from an AST of a textual representation. How do we arrive at a system where the representation itself creates new representation?

  • This is done incredibly well inside of the Audulus Programming Language — an amazing piece of art — where the existence of the basic elements permits grouping of nodes into a new interface. The problem of this that the UI of Audulus software is made with placement of its children; whereas we require.

Quotes & Excerpts

You know it’s a framework and not just a library, when you hear engineers present the work using concepts they invented, as a way to actualize their mental model

LAIKE9M
↖︎ Avoid Mini-frameworks

Perfect software offers a different kind of value: Sufficiency. It’s the virtue of requiring less, not because you lack ambition, but because you have met the need. While growth demands a constant state of hunger, sufficiency offers satiety. And perfect software delivers that because the moment you deem something perfect, you become content.

GAURAV RAMESH
↖︎ Perfect Software - Software for an Audience of One

[Perfect Software:] I mean “perfect” in the way I mean a “perfect coffee”. There’s no such thing as the world’s best coffee. There’s only your coffee, with the perfect amount of sugar, the perfect milk-to-coffee ratio, the perfect roast, served at the perfect temperature, in a perfect cup.

GAURAV RAMESH
↖︎ Perfect Software - Software for an Audience of One

Mini-frameworks is a realization of the creator’s mental model, but it’s not everyone’s mental model. People who tend to create mini-framework are often more opinionated, which is a good thing by itself. But when you create things for others to use, too opinionated can be a bad thing. I would even say that sometimes (not always), creating a mini framework directly reflects the author’s ego, and they chose a framework because a tiny library don’t recognize the “significance of the work”.

LAIKE9M
↖︎ Avoid Mini-frameworks
Day's Context
Videos Watched
Astrophysicist WARNS: “Reality Is Not What You Think”
Building websites with Dart and Jaspr
Path Planning Optimization and Heuristic Search Enhancements
Strengthening Flutter's core widgets
Open Books