Critique: Bicycles for the mind
have to be see-through
(Kartik Agaram)
Tomas Petricek
tomasp.net | tomas@tomasp.net | @tomaspetricek
Convivial tools
Points to agree with
Convivial tools
Tool shouldn't just make some activity more convenient
Tools should preserve individual agency!
Avoiding 'bad' complexity
Don't paper over tool deficiencies with a second tool
Maintenance leads to compounding claims on time
Take the first tool out, think the problem anew
I admire the goals of Mu!
Mu is a stack designed from the ground up: to fit in a single brain and to not grow complex over time.
Am I getting my bicycle...
...with a steel forge?
Ways of thinking about tools?
Pre-modern
Craftspeople crafting their own low-tech tools
Modern
Scientist designs optimal tools for us
Post-modern
Messy pluralist world that we need to navigate
High modernism
Seeing Like a State
Design for legibility
Scientific forestry
Spruce forests are easy to plant and harvest
They get infected and are not resistant
Soviet collectivization
Standardized organization of farming
Not flexible enough to produce e.g. raspberries
Design for legibility
- Trying to make sense of a thing, affects its design
- Leads to more legible designs lacking other qualities
- Certain schemes have failed, i.e. killed millions
- Leads to the creation of dark twins
Mu and high modernism?
Dark twins?
"As it executes instructions, the SubX emulator
monitors for labels that start with a $watch- prefix."
Unexpected consequences?
What desirable systems would become hard to think/create using the Mu approach?
Abstraction
Abstraction is not convivial?
Using fewer abstractions - carefully designed to leak in just the right ways - can make the maintenance task more approachable to end users.
Limiting abstraction
Mu approach - pre-modern?
Use with caution, make sure system 'fits in the brain'
Haskell approach - modern?
Optimal non-leaky abstractions designed by scientists
Alternative approach? - post-modern?
Cannot fit in the brain, but need to be able to cope..
Cities: Don't fit the brain, but are legible
Making sense of a city
- I only know the bits I need to know
- I have some general idea about the rest
- I can learn about other bits if I need to
- Can we make software more navigable?
Kevin Lynch (1960). The Image of the City
Conclusions
Mu is an impressive attempt to address
- We need convivial tools
- Abstraction is a major issue
What is the approach and its dangers?
- Is this pre-modern instead of post-modern?
- Is this suffering from high-modernist flaws?
Tomas Petricek | tomas@tomasp.net | @tomaspetricek