Found in 2 comments on Hacker News
zby · 2022-01-18 · Original thread
In 'Why we talk' ( Dessalles arguments that we have two modes of talking - the first one is visual and probabilistic, the second one is topological - that is concerned about zero one questions - like if something is inside or outside of something. The first one is about imagining situations and judging their salience (or improbability). The second is about argumenting - simplifying the information so that you can 'proove' stuff. The point is that visuals are too rich and there can be too many ways to imagine things - so it is hard to convince someone that a particular scene is wrong or right. When you simplify things to the topological level of question if something is inside something or outside - then you can use inference to arrive at some logical conclusions, with steps so obvious that it is hard to argument against them.

Programming is mostly about logic - that is why it is hard to visualise. I think this is the problem with 'visual programming languages' (like - which, disclosure, is in my investmet porfolio) - and also here. This is kind of surprising - because we naturally expect the visuals to be as rich as the logic. But we need to carefully think about what is complementary here.

zby · 2021-12-24 · Original thread

It goes a bit slow and with too much details about hypotheses that are eventually rejected but really interesting insights into language. Relevant to computer languages too probably.

Fresh book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.