The author argues that Knuth's vision of literate programming, where code is written for humans within a narrative explaining its logic, hasn't achieved mainstream adoption because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of programming. Rather than a linear, top-down process suitable for narrative explanation, programming is inherently exploratory and iterative, involving frequent refactoring and restructuring. Literate programming tools force a rigid structure onto this fluid process, making it cumbersome and ultimately counterproductive. The author proposes "exploratory programming" as a more realistic approach, emphasizing tools that facilitate quick exploration, refactoring, and visualization of code relationships, allowing understanding to emerge organically from the code itself.
In a 2014 blog post titled "Literate Programming: Knuth is doing it wrong," author Akkartikone argues that Donald Knuth's concept of literate programming, while noble in its intention, fundamentally misunderstands the ideal workflow for programmers. Knuth's vision, as implemented in tools like WEB and CWEB, emphasizes writing code primarily for an audience of human readers, weaving it into a narrative document that explains the program's logic. This document is then processed by a tool to extract the actual compilable source code. Akkartikone contends that this "write for humans first, then extract for the machine" approach inverts the natural order of programming.
The author asserts that programming is an inherently iterative and exploratory process. Programmers often begin with vague ideas and refine them through experimentation, writing and rewriting code until it functions correctly. This process, Akkartikone posits, is best facilitated by tools that provide immediate feedback and allow rapid modification and testing. Knuth's literate programming tools, by imposing an additional layer of processing between writing code and executing it, impede this rapid iteration cycle. They encourage a more waterfall-like approach, where code is meticulously documented and finalized before being tested, which the author deems unsuitable for the dynamic nature of software development.
Akkartikone proposes an alternative approach they call "exploratory programming," where the focus is on a tight feedback loop between writing and running code. The author argues that the ideal programming environment should allow programmers to easily experiment with different code snippets, test them quickly, and refactor them fluidly. Documentation, in this paradigm, should be a secondary concern, emerging from the refined and functional code rather than preceding it. Instead of being interwoven with the code itself, documentation should be extracted from it, possibly using automated tools that analyze the code's structure and behavior.
The blog post further explores the concept of "noweb," a simpler literate programming tool that Akkartikone views as a step in the right direction. While still adhering to the "write for humans first" principle, noweb offers a less cumbersome syntax and a more streamlined workflow than WEB/CWEB. However, even noweb, according to Akkartikone, ultimately falls short of the ideal exploratory programming environment.
The author concludes by advocating for a shift in focus from "literate programming" to "literate codebases." Instead of aiming to produce beautifully documented code from the outset, the goal should be to create tools and processes that facilitate the extraction of meaningful documentation from existing, well-structured codebases. This, Akkartikone believes, will better serve the practical needs of programmers and contribute to the development of more maintainable and understandable software.
Summary of Comments ( 53 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42683009
Hacker News users discuss the merits and flaws of Knuth's literate programming style. Some argue that his approach, while elegant, prioritizes code as literature over practicality, making it difficult to navigate and modify, particularly in larger projects. Others counter that the core concept of intertwining code and explanation remains valuable, but modern tooling like Jupyter notebooks and embedded documentation offer better solutions. The thread also explores alternative approaches like docstrings and the use of comments to generate documentation, emphasizing the importance of clear and concise explanations within the codebase itself. Several commenters highlight the benefits of separating documentation from code for maintainability and flexibility, suggesting that the ideal approach depends on the project's scale and complexity. The original post is criticized for misrepresenting Knuth's views and focusing too heavily on superficial aspects like tool choice rather than the underlying philosophy.
The Hacker News post discussing Akkartik's 2014 blog post, "Literate programming: Knuth is doing it wrong," has generated a significant number of comments. Several commenters engage with Akkartik's core argument, which posits that Knuth's vision of literate programming focused too much on producing a human-readable document and not enough on the code itself being the primary artifact.
One compelling line of discussion revolves around the practicality and perceived benefits of literate programming. Some commenters share anecdotal experiences of successfully using literate programming techniques, emphasizing the improved clarity and maintainability of their code. They argue that thinking of code as a narrative improves its structure and makes it easier to understand, particularly for complex projects. However, other commenters counter this by pointing out the added overhead and complexity involved in maintaining a separate document, especially in collaborative environments. Concerns are raised about the potential for the documentation to become out of sync with the code, negating its intended benefits. The discussion explores the trade-offs between the upfront investment in literate programming and its long-term payoff in terms of code quality.
Another thread of conversation delves into the tooling and workflows associated with literate programming. Commenters discuss various tools and approaches, ranging from simple text editors with custom scripts to dedicated literate programming environments. The challenges of integrating literate programming into existing development workflows are also acknowledged. Some commenters advocate for tools that allow for seamless transitions between the code and documentation, while others suggest that the choice of tools depends heavily on the specific project and programming language.
Furthermore, the comments explore alternative interpretations of literate programming and its potential applications beyond traditional software development. The idea of applying literate programming principles to other fields, such as data analysis or scientific research, is discussed. Some commenters suggest that the core principles of literate programming – clarity, narrative structure, and interwoven explanation – could be beneficial in any context where complex procedures need to be documented and communicated effectively.
Finally, several comments directly address Akkartik's criticisms of Knuth's approach. Some agree with Akkartik's assessment, arguing that the focus on generating beautiful documents can obscure the underlying code. Others defend Knuth's vision, emphasizing the importance of clear and accessible documentation for complex software systems. This discussion highlights the ongoing debate about the true essence of literate programming and its optimal implementation.