Programming as Theory Building (1985)
gist.github.com
gist.github.com
The one insightful idea I found in this essay is that coding is a lossy one-way operation, from which you cannot fully derive the original idea or the 'theory'. That seems similar to losing information when compiling source code, making it impossible to restore the exact source code from its machine code representation.
So if we work backwards, it's: machine code (bits) -> source code (text) -> idea/solution (human thought?)
Despite losing some information, machine and source code have interesting properties, such as being able to copy them easily, transpile to different format, etc.
What I'd like to ask the HN brain is if anyone can think of another way to express a higher level thought other than language? In his essay, Naur implies that there is no such thing. I wonder if we had made any progress on that front in the 35 years that have elapsed since this essay was written.
The only thing I can think of is something like UML, which has tons of diagram types for structural and behavioral properties of a system, but I've always found it hard to 'see' the real idea they're trying to describe, in the same way how I find it hard to imagine a 4D object by looking at its 3D projections. With enough effort its certainly doable, but I wouldn't say the process is intuitive or easy, so to me, diagrams are like projections of an idea from different points of view, but how do we encode the idea/thought/theory itself?
What is it about language and apprenticeship that makes conveying ideas or theories possible? I view this process as an inefficient way of serializing an idea and transmitting it over voice to another person, who has to unserialize the sounds, convert them to words, then they have to create the associations in their brain based on the meaning of those words, and then probe into the correctness of the associations by asking clarifying questions.
Is this really the best we can do in 2020? How are other fields conveying complex abstract notions and ideas?
One of Ryle’s central points is that there’s a categorical difference between being able to perform a skill yourself and knowing facts about how that skill is performed. Books, language, and observing other practitioners can only provide the latter kind of knowledge, but the former is what’s actually valuable.
Learning how to do something can only be achieved through practice. This practice can be guided and improved by rote learning, but cannot be replaced by it. Also, no two practitioners approach a skill in exactly the same way: As only rote knowledge can be transferred between people, each person builds their own structure of operational knowledge based on their particular experiences.
Naur’s argument here, then, is that this operational knowledge is dominated not by knowledge of building software in general, but instead by the understanding of how a particular piece of software functions internally and interacts with external factors. These external factors are both concrete, like protocol specifications, and abstract, like the competitive landscape the company is operating in.
Further, Naur argues that the primary value in developing a piece of software isn’t the software itself, but the expertise that the programming team had to develop in order to produce it. In this view, dismissing the programmers and keeping the software is a grave mistake that will surface when one of the external factors changes and there is noone qualified to update the software.
We get around this by invoking combinations of existing ideas and hoping that the recipient puts them together in more or less the right way: we might say "a leopard sits in the tree to your left", invoking the existing ideas "leopard", "tree", "to your left" and "sits", which can be combined in the obvious way. UML, musical notation, mathematics... all these are variations on "language" in the sense that they have a vocabulary of existing ideas, and a grammar of natural ways to combine them, and so you can bootstrap ideas in another person's brain by giving them pieces they already know and hoping they can assemble the idea correctly.
Language is messy and non-portable and unreliable, and it is exactly those properties which allow it to convey novel ideas from one person to another.
I point to examples of trees and say "tree", etc.
"New" ideas are acquired by example -- language is not a closed system.
I think it could be argued that category theory, and categorical thinking more generally are basically in this spirit. There’s a reason why a lot of folks think it’s the best thing since sliced bread.
The basic idea is that it has a sharply crystallized notion of what it means to have an analogy, which can piggy back on top of a bunch of essential structures from math to provide a language that is very effective for communication. Of course it’s only effective in communicating with people who share enough of that context.
As an example of this spirit of using rigorous reasoning to communicate better is the Haskell motto that the existence of “design patterns” imply a failure of the language for lack of expressiveness (more of a relative statement than absolute). If your language is any good, and your understanding of the pattern is sharp enough, then you should just be able to factorize it into a library. This lends to a programming style with highly modular, declarative and terse code.
Disclaimer: I’m not a Haskell expert by any means, so YMMV.
— Richard P. Gabriel, “Patterns of Software”
I suspect future development will occur merging tests as examples of program functionality with data models and call graphs derived and annotated based on common ontologies.
We would have, in this future, the ability to “translate” programs from one language to another the way Google Translate does, not necessarily as correctly as if one understands the language’s native idioms, but as if one had a dictionary of words and phrases and their definitions and could translate snippets to relate an unfamiliar codebase to patterns.
This would be clearer if tagging of code to an ontology were baked into the language the way the type system is baked into TypeScript’s ability to annotate types.
And TypeScript itself is an excellent example of how if we can annotate more fine-grained information useful generally only to programmers actively developing the program, it’s still very much a win-win.
I find myself frustrated now at how I can’t always rename string to other custom types if I want the string’s type to express meaning, similarly not every language supports string literal types.
Languages are more expressive about types than they used to be, and it’s possible to make types dynamically are compile time, so languages have themselves become more flexible.
The ultimate goal would be to encode the system model so concisely that you would want to re-use the model or ontology in a number of systems, yet maintain a bidirectional relationship so if your database or a third-party system adds a constraint to the model, the model reflects that automatically. Vice versa if your model incorrectly encodes the real world, you should be able to refactor your programs by changing the model.
I suppose to make this ontology-based solution a bit easier it should be broken down into two parts: an ontology of computer software and hardware terms based on ISO BFO as an example, and a separate ontology representing the program’s problem domain, often outside of computer science.
There is something of a flaw in this logic — models rarely map exactly to the real-world and thus while you can annotate or tag software, nothing can save you from a bad model or one that needs to evolve.
To that end, ASTs and CSTs with automated code formatting can help again. There are programs that can mutate tests until they pass to automatically suggest fixes. Programs you can write to rewrite programs automatically.
I actually think one part of the article aged poorly — the section where program modifications are hard to do at scale. Actually, program changes can be trivial at scale these days, assuming you can avoid PR merge conflicts of course.
The tough part is ensuring you’ve enough knowledge of what the program is currently doing, it’s current behaviours and environment, as well as what it was meant to do.
One last thing, a program may entirely be theory not code, but as a counterpoint: any behaviours undefined by the program model or spec will eventually be relied upon by somebody at scale.
Which is another way of saying that sometimes a program dies because it is adopted too widely and thus can never evolve without confusing everyone and everything that uses it.
This is perhaps an argument that programs should constantly evolve and be built for evolution, that models should also. If so, git and GitHub help tremendously but we don’t have enough similar tools for modelling and ontology yet. We don’t have a standardized git or TS for adding model annotations to source code or trees/derived program artifacts. Git commit comments help but only a bit, they aren’t descriptive enough. Can we relate a commit to a model change? Or a production incident? How interlinked yet machine interpretable are our models and corresponding representations in code, in commit history?
And finally, can we make models and ontologies easy to use and update with less training and distraction? Could a system be built to help reverse engineer models from code by illustrating possible shapes and a human then does the work of researching the correct details and aligning all possible representations into one derived model? I’m thinking of how human-computer systems generally outpace human or computer decision making alone. If so, we rely far too much on humans to understand models encoded in code today, and should shift that burden back to the machine as much as possible to instead assist us and where possible, spot mistakes in our models.
Shameless plug: it's been on my mind for a while as well. I'm writing a book on this that has (I believe) several novel insights.
There's far too much to cover in an HN essay, but perhaps my best response is that your idea of working backwards from machine code to thought is a mistaken paradigm. There's no translation or mapping, at least not in the sense that coders like to think. That's one of many fallacies we've ran into on our journey over the last several decades to write better and more useful code.
It's well worth reading and made me appreciate the importance of Information Theory (and computers)!
On the other hand, it's also "enriching" in that software can (or must) define the concrete details of models and logic that were missing in the source (human thought).
> ..another way to express a higher level thought other than language?
If software development is the modelling ("theory building") of higher-level human thought (often ambiguous or ill-defined) into textual source code in a programming language..
The answer may come from the "language environment", richer features in an IDE/editor that integrate with the compiler and the abstract syntax tree. When you mentioned "projections", I thought about how text is one of many possible perspectives into a program. I can imagine other representations, perhaps UML-like, that an editor could provide as a view mode - that would allow exploring the models and logic flow of a program visually.
Another aspect I think of, is that programming is a collaborative process that almost always involves people with domain-specific knowledge outside of programming. It could be that the biggest information loss occurs not in the encoding/programming, but in the (cross-cultural) communication between these spheres of thought.
..Which seems to imply that there ought to be developed a shared language - or conceptual framework - between experts in software development and those outside of it.
A shared language/framework would allow the encoding to happen at a higher-level of abstraction, collaboratively - instead of one side encoding in (vague) human language, then the other side encoding in (precise) programming language.
My line of thought keeps returning to something like interactive UML diagrams that can be developed together by all stake-holders. Ideally, these would be living diagrams that are directly used by the software itself, to generate database schema, internal models/classes, control flow.. But I'm skeptical whether "visual programming" as a paradigm is the answer, mainly because there have been countless unsatisfying attempts.
I find inspiration in the works of people like Seymour Papert ¹, Alan Kay ², Bret Victor ³, who challenge our existing notions of what programming is and could be.
A common thread among them is the focus on interface and environment, how textual representation of software is only one of many possible perspectives, that there's room for innovation in how we interact, explore, develop and communicate about software. A vital part of that is including "non-programmers", the rest of the world, in the development process.
I'm fond of the Whole Code Catalogue ⁴, and what the Future of Coding initiative is doing. I think this area of investigation is an important one, to continue to attempt to bridge the gap between human thought and software.
² http://www.vpri.org/work/our_work.htm
The problem is that knowledge is mostly "tacit", and tends to grow as the software evolves. For example, several development tasks are normally completed not only based on the documented user stories, but they also carry the context from meetings or discussions that aren't documented.
When you lose the original authors of the program, it becomes very difficult to rebuild the necessary context to understand how the system works - tasks like adding new features or modifying existing behavior becomes very hard. Also in the "The Metaphor as a Theory" part, much of the work is a shared knowledge between the developers, when you have several programmers working in parallel as fast as they can, the design of the program can become highly incoherent.
Nowdays we have practices like testing which could be a really helpful companion when it comes to understanding how the system works and the expected behavior of it's parts, which can be treated as a documentation, also we have code reviews that can guarantee that any addition to the system is consistent according to the system's design if is done right.
But still, this dependency of the context it's a very hard problem to resolve.
Totally agreed. I agree that the missing codification is the context that was needed at the genesis of the program -- the context necessary to understand it holistically.
Seems to me a valid way of understanding this problem is that there is a missing piece of documentation. It's generally well documented where/what the starting point product/business idea is as well as where/what the end point code is, but how point B was derived from point A is oftentimes not well documented. This method of derivation highly informs the structure of the result, and is a lossy conversion. It can be thought of as the "spirit" of a program/an org's engineering department (what happens in between the product ideas you can see going in and the lines of code output you can see coming out).
If that part, and the methods and techniques by which an org maps and translates an idea from the domain of business into the domain of code, is codified and documented and evolved alongside the programs the org produces then it may help.
I had a protracted, bitter struggle with this at one job. We had a business process, really in the top two of business processes, that was neglected as it was critical. When I was new to that role, I said, "We should rewrite this. This is scattered across multiple servers, the code has almost no comments (in the places where we still had source code), and more importantly, people were leaving."
One of the original programmers had died. People responsible for the why of certain decisions were retiring or leaving. And so on and so forth. I used to joke that our process was documented in C, except for the places it was bash, or borrowed Powershell, or ... Like an evolved process, instead of problems being solved, later systems were added to correct issues, only epicycles, even as the bus factor continued to decrement every so often.
I still have a low level of sour antipathy when I think of it, that my efforts to "do the right thing" came to nothing.
It's a shame. When I had a freer hand to work as I liked, systems I built could detect, in a limited fashion, when the world had changed, that is, if the theory of the world was wrong. If the vendor changed some critical portion of the database, the program would identify the new column or the missing table, then loudly expire after issuing its complaint.
This understanding of the slice of the world a program must interact with is so critical and worse yet, fragile, subject to both breakage and decay.
On the other hand, while a programmer can learn from source and documentation the wheres, whens, and whats of the program, there is always the remaining question of "Why?", which is central to this discussion. Here, I think good high-level examples of usage tend to do a good job of covering the inputs and outputs. But with regard to all of the intermediary states of the program... there is too much detail there to really document it. Those details evolve as an evolution more than a design. There is code added, then replaced or omitted entirely. Things are designed which work, but then are restructured for performance, organization, or to eliminate repetition. In these cases, there is information that is manifested in the absence of code, and the second rendering of the code better captures its function, but obscures its evolutionary history.
Here's something I've been consuming lately: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbpMiKiSKm8
This game programmer (Sebastian Lague, who is excellent, by the way) walks through the development of procedural terrain generation in Unity. What's fascinating to me is the way he does it does this really effective job of "theory building". Things are implemented; results are observed; some code is deleted altogether that was only ever present to allow building up to that illustration, but will no longer be necessary at the next stage of evolution.
This is the way programmers work. Information is lost. If you weren't there to experience it at inception, only a great imagination and testing can replace it--at which point, you may find yourself actually rewriting the code, using existing code as a reference.
We have books written in languages we don't understand. There has to be shared context beneath all forms of communication and communication itself can be seen as CRUD operations of the layered cake of shared contexts/stories/narratives/ideas that have dependencies between them.
Study of CRUD operations and interactions between the layers and what the various types are and what common dependencies occur and when would be a very fruitful field of psychology, if not perhaps some AI modelling - I don't know if there already is a psychological model along these lines.
For example when you haven't seen a friend for a long time and you reconnect, if your life experiences haven't updated or deleted large parts of your shared context, you'll fall right back into the groove.
It does make me wonder if there needs to be an update of the shared context country or even world-wide to make people feel a sense of community again. We've done away with religion and the many community bonding experiences that it offered. We've tried the 'get rich or die tryin' context and I don't think it has been fulfilling for the majority of the beta testers :)
Time to try something else, perhaps with a little more thought and rigor put into it?
This is perhaps the best paper ever to explain the nature of collaborative program development and maintenance.
If I had a company I would make this mandatory reading for everybody - everybody, not just programmers.
Absolutely. The plain English definition for the word "program" that Google shows is (noun) "a set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term aim", (verb) "arrange according to a plan or schedule".
A software program fulfills a certain set of behaviors, serves a certain purpose, is a materialization of an idea, or otherwise is a transcription of something from a certain domain into the domain of software. The "source of truth" of what that something is is external from the program.
The knowledge domain of a programmer is therefore not only both their code and the idea it represents but the mapping in between. Both ends are easily documentable (in the narrow context of their specific domains), and it feels like this could have led to a possible convolution of what it takes to be a good programmer.
We have endless measures, philosophies, and codifications for what makes for good form when drawing back the bowstring, what release techniques make for the least disturbance to the arrow's path, what arrow shape makes for the most optimal flight, etc, but less for an archer's aiming technique. All we can do is just look to see if the target's been hit or not.
How an org "aims" the "arrow" of code towards the business target is a higher level concern than how awesome the arrow shot is or how straight it flies. If you're not controlling how you aim you lack the context to fully qualify your assessment of how arrow choice, pull/release form, or even flight path affected your result.
Codifying not only how your org builds product ideas and how it implements software, but how your org maps from one domain to the other helps mitigate knowledge siloing.
This would explain why a lot of corporate software isn’t good. There is no shared understanding and a lot of people make changes without understanding the big picture.
I think it's three pieces that need to come together. The source, the system it's running on, and the user. You don't necessarily need all 3
1. If you only have the user and the source but not the system then you're screwed. I could print out the entire FreeBSD source and docs, go back in time to 1820 and it would be pretty much useless since I need a C compiler and a million transistors, power supply and a bunch of other stuff. Obviously this is an extreme example, since most of the time you'd just have a slightly incomplete system (e.g. crappy build scripts but you know they built it on a unix system 2 years ago) so it's usually workable
2. If it's the user and the system then that's basically proprietary software. You can reverse engineer the source. Tedious but doable
3. If it's the source and the system, then you might be able to get a new user study both and understand everything again. Depends on the complexity of the source/system and the docs.
I think of it as an organism, like it can be damaged and heal itself. There is redundancy between these 3 axes. Depending the circumstances, you can heal it or it might be permanently damaged
10 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20487652
2 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10833278
5 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7491661
I don't agree with that statement, but I don't think the primary aim is to produce a program either.
I believe the primary aim is to enable users to use a program. For that they need a mental model. Maintaining a consistent and simple theory among developers is a means to that end.
[1] I refer to what are called SSII (société de services en ingénierie informatique) in France.