Semantics and scheduling for machine knitting compilers (2023)
textiles-lab.github.io
textiles-lab.github.io
People who can decompile a jumper into its instruction set amaze me. Some of them can adjust the parameter stack on the fly to fix errors, or tailor the fit, or cope with changes in the wool.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_machine#The_woven_s...
It is estimated that 200,000 to 500,000 punch cards were necessary to encode the pages, at 160 threads per cm (400 threads per inch).
A rough calculation from the pagecount and dimensions gives approximately 40MB of bitmap data for each page, or 80-200 bytes (640-1600 bits) per punched card.
You can see the whole thing here:
https://www.thedigitalwalters.org/Data/WaltersManuscripts/ht...
Not to belittle the point—I think it's worth saying—but does anyone who's ever actually looked at a knitting pattern think otherwise?
How many knitters write knitting patterns? How many know how to algorithmically modify a pattern to suit their body type?
I used to teach computing at night school in the 1980s and as a metaphor it was remarkably useful for motivation with older women who were in an "I can't do this" frame of mind. Pointing out that if they did any design work in knitting or crochet, or at least could understand how to modify a complex pattern e.g. around a neckline, or cabling, they were already "doing it"
A jacquard loom is for weaving. Knitting machines are very programmable.
I would assume most do. Most knitting patterns I see are parametric over a range of sizes and the author assumes the reader can apply the parameters correctly for the size they want. It usually looks something like:
"This hat can be knit small (medium, large). Cast on 84 (96, 104) stitches..."
So the "small (medium, large)" part tells you the pattern is parameterized over size which can be one of three values. Then whenever you see a value like "84 (96, 104)", you pick the first if you want small, the second for medium, or the third for large.
(As a language designer, I confess I don't like the syntax for this, but it seems pretty standard.)
But that's what was said—knitting pattern design, not knitting.
> > I've always believed knitting pattern design is programming.
In what sense? My dad is a blacksmith, and his ability to intuitively asses material requirements, adjust designs to make them feasible, and decompose shapes, far surpasses mine.
I guess it's hard for me to see what makes knitting designs any more like programming than any other craft. I'd think that an essential part of programming is exactly that the computer can't "adjust the parameters".
Babbage got the idea of punched cards from Jacquard.