Forum Posts Feed
Surfulater PrevGen on bits, again
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Neville Franks
Dec 4, 2013 at 08:22 AM
Writing software is also so much about brevity. I wrote on my blog (http://blog.surfulater.com) eons ago about creeping featuritis. It is always much harder to whittle down functionality and features and strike a balance of “just what people need or at least think they need”. And it so easy to say we have this long laundry list of features so we must have a better product than anyone with a shorter list.
- Neville
Posted by jimspoon
Dec 4, 2013 at 11:55 AM
@Cassius - those are great quotes about brevity in writing. I was surprised to see that Louise Brooks was one of the persons quoted. She was a beautiful silent film star! I wondered if it was the same Louise Brooks who is quoted. So I looked at the wikipedia page about her - she was a VERY unusual person. Turns out she did a lot of writing, so she probably did actually say it.
Posted by 22111
Jan 17, 2014 at 09:06 PM
Details on the superiority of TAGGING for DISTINCT data here: http://www.outlinersoftware.com/topics/reply/5264/19997
It’s just a superiority for dogmatic reasons: You’ll check out for combinations of criteria fulfilled by datasets, so the (single-only) assignments of clones to individual step-parents is of no use to the user and thus should be visible in the tree, just complicating the tree, but the “virtual parent” functionality should be hidden - which is exactly what a tagging system does.
Conceptually, “under the hook” it’s quite the same thing, but the “looks”, and the “psychological handling” is different.
Posted by tradercclee
Jan 18, 2014 at 02:56 PM
To 22111 :
I too am interested in your pearls… Just don’t have time to dig and find them. :)
Out of curiosity, are you in academia by chance?
Posted by 22111
Jan 19, 2014 at 05:25 PM
Don’t worry, I’ll consolidate my findings.
This being said, there’s a fissure between thinking and speech, between thinking and putting down your thoughts into words, in writing (and does that depend on the language you use? perhaps it does; but then, neither in German, nor in French, nor in English I see a chance to fill up that void). So nobody should be astonished by sw not being able to replicate that very first step, from thinking to “writing it up”. I very much fear that never ever there will be software to replicate thinking, but I’m striving for drawing near us the very best sw concepts to what we would like them to do for us, in order to “thin out” the above-mentioned fissure as much as possible.
I’d be very thankful for any insight, any thought some smart guy here could ever have, in order to develop on it further; world-wide, currently, people seem to withhold their thoughts on this “from thought to write down” schism/fission (sorry, English being my third language), and whilst trying to find=read all those possible articles like “Cottrell: Word Processors: Stupid and Inefficient” or “Sawyer: A Writer’s Word Processor”, I didn’t “get” it yet, in spite of the fact of being able to dissect those people’s thinking’s shortcomings on our common matter.
Unfortunately, there, worldwide, isn’t any discussion forum on related theory, so I’ll have to misuse this forum, for the time being, to monolog, but be assured that whenever I stumble across any constructive idea, smart or erroneous in its current state, I’ll be deeply thankful for your contribution, and I’ll certainly won’t call you an “asshole” - that denomination being strictly booked for cynics that think that a mere line like “that’s not new”, “that’s not smart” or such is sufficient for invaluating 20, 30 or 60 lines of development of some idea, definite or intermediate.
And you got me right if you took this as an invitation.
I’m not up to insult people; I’m just, sometime, a little bit heart-minded when I occur TOO simple-minded interjections AND must fear the easy discussiant isn’t even bona fide while speaking dumb.