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.
The GitHub repository titled "Memos – An open-source Rewinds / Recall" introduces Memos, a self-hosted, open-source application designed to function as a personal knowledge management and note-taking tool. Heavily inspired by the now-defunct application "Rewinds," and drawing parallels to the service "Recall," Memos aims to provide a streamlined and efficient way to capture and retrieve fleeting thoughts, ideas, and snippets of information encountered throughout the day. It offers a simplified interface centered around the creation and organization of short, text-based notes, or "memos."
The application's architecture leverages a familiar tech stack, employing React for the front-end interface and Go for the back-end server, contributing to its perceived simplicity and performance. Data persistence is achieved through the utilization of SQLite, a lightweight and readily accessible database solution. This combination allows for relatively easy deployment and maintenance on a personal server, making it accessible to a wider range of users who prioritize data ownership and control.
Key features of Memos include the ability to create memos with formatted text using Markdown, facilitating the inclusion of rich text elements like headings, lists, and links. Users can also categorize their memos using hashtags, allowing for flexible and organic organization of information. Furthermore, Memos incorporates a robust search functionality, enabling users to quickly and efficiently retrieve specific memos based on keywords or hashtags. The open-source nature of the project allows for community contributions and customization, fostering further development and tailoring the application to individual needs. The project is actively maintained and regularly updated, reflecting a commitment to ongoing improvement and refinement of the software. Essentially, Memos offers a compelling alternative to proprietary note-taking applications by providing a user-friendly, self-hosted solution focused on simplicity, speed, and the preservation of personal data.
The Hacker News post titled "Memos – An open source Rewinds / Recall" generated several interesting comments discussing the Memos project, its features, and potential use cases.
Several commenters appreciated the open-source nature of Memos, contrasting it with proprietary alternatives like Rewind and Recall. They saw this as a significant advantage, allowing for community contributions, customization, and avoiding vendor lock-in. The self-hosting aspect was also praised, giving users greater control over their data.
A key discussion point revolved around the technical implementation of Memos. Commenters inquired about the search functionality, specifically how it handles large datasets and the types of data it can index (e.g., text within images, audio transcriptions). The project's use of SQLite was noted, with some expressing curiosity about its scalability for extensive data storage. Related to this, the resource usage (CPU, RAM, disk space) of the application became a topic of interest, particularly concerning performance over time.
The potential applications of Memos were also explored. Some users envisioned its use as a personal search engine for their digital lives, extending beyond typical note-taking apps. Others saw its value in specific professional contexts, like research or software development, where quickly recalling past information is crucial. The ability to integrate Memos with other tools and services was also discussed as a desirable feature.
Privacy concerns were raised, especially regarding data security and the potential for misuse. Commenters emphasized the importance of responsible data handling practices, particularly when dealing with sensitive personal information.
Some users shared their existing workflows for similar purposes, often involving a combination of note-taking apps, screenshot tools, and search utilities. These comments provided context and alternative approaches to personal information management, implicitly comparing them to the functionalities offered by Memos.
Finally, several commenters expressed their intent to try Memos, highlighting the project's appeal and potential. The discussion overall demonstrated a positive reception to the project, with a focus on its practical utility and open-source nature.
This GitHub project, titled "obsidian-textgrams," introduces a novel approach to managing and displaying ASCII diagrams within Obsidian, a popular note-taking and knowledge management application. The plugin specifically addresses the challenge of storing and rendering these text-based diagrams, which are often used for visualizations, technical illustrations, and quick sketches. Instead of relying on image embedding, which can be cumbersome and inflexible, obsidian-textgrams allows users to store these diagrams directly within their Markdown files as code blocks. This maintains the inherent portability and editability of plain text.
The plugin leverages a custom code block language identifier, likely textgram or similar, to delineate these diagrams within the Markdown document. This allows Obsidian, with the plugin installed, to distinguish them from standard code blocks. Upon encountering a textgram code block, the plugin intercepts the rendering process. Instead of displaying the raw ASCII text, it parses the content and dynamically generates a visual representation of the diagram. This rendering is likely achieved using a JavaScript library capable of interpreting and visualizing ASCII characters as graphical elements, connecting lines, and forming shapes based on the provided input.
This approach offers several advantages. Firstly, it keeps the diagrams within the text file itself, promoting version control friendliness and avoiding the need to manage separate image files. Secondly, it facilitates easier editing. Users can directly modify the ASCII text within the code block, and the rendered diagram will update accordingly, streamlining the iterative design process. Finally, this method likely preserves the semantic meaning of the diagram, as the underlying ASCII text remains accessible and searchable within Obsidian. This stands in contrast to raster image-based diagrams where the underlying information is lost in the pixel data. In essence, obsidian-textgrams transforms Obsidian into a more powerful tool for working with ASCII diagrams, offering a more integrated and streamlined workflow compared to traditional image-based approaches.
The Hacker News post "Show HN: Store and render ASCII diagrams in Obsidian" at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42112168 generated several comments discussing various aspects of the project.
Several commenters appreciated the utility of the tool, particularly for quickly sketching out diagrams within Obsidian. One user pointed out the advantage of having diagrams rendered directly within the note-taking application, rather than relying on external tools or image uploads. They specifically mentioned the convenience this offers for quick brainstorming and idea capture. This sentiment was echoed by another user who highlighted the speed and ease of use compared to traditional diagramming software.
The discussion also delved into the technical aspects of the project. One commenter inquired about the rendering process, specifically whether it was client-side or server-side. The project creator clarified that rendering is handled client-side using JavaScript within Obsidian. This prompted further discussion about potential performance implications for complex diagrams.
The choice of using Mermaid.js for rendering was also a topic of conversation. One commenter suggested PlantUML as an alternative, praising its flexibility and extensive feature set. They also pointed out PlantUML's wider adoption and the availability of server-side rendering options. This led to a discussion about the trade-offs between different rendering engines, considering factors like ease of use, feature richness, and performance.
Some commenters expressed interest in extending the plugin's functionality. One suggestion involved integrating with other Obsidian plugins, specifically those focused on graph visualization. Another user proposed adding support for other diagram formats beyond Mermaid.js, such as Graphviz.
Overall, the comments reflect a positive reception of the project, with users acknowledging its practicality and potential for enhancing the Obsidian note-taking experience. The discussion also highlighted areas for potential improvement and expansion, including exploring alternative rendering engines and integrating with other Obsidian plugins. There was a definite interest in the technical aspects of implementation and a healthy discussion regarding the chosen technical stack as well as some alternatives.
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.