hodapp/blag
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge branch 'master' of ssh://hodapple.com/home/hodapp/blag

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Chris Hodapp 2019-10-27 09:51:00 -04:00
commit 3b78e798d4
1 changed files with 87 additions and 28 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

113
drafts/2017-04-20-modularity.org
View File

@ -3,6 +3,9 @@
#+DATE: April 20, 2017
#+TAGS: technobabble
# Why don't I turn this into a paper for arXiv too? It can still be
# posted to the blog (just also make it exportable to LaTeX perhaps)
_Modularity_ and _abstraction_ feature prominently wherever computers
are involved. This is meant very broadly: it applies to designing
software, using software, integrating software, and to a lot of
@ -98,15 +101,16 @@ Other terms are related too. "Loosely-coupled" (or loose coupling)
and "tightly-coupled" refer to the sort of abstractions sitting
between modules, or whether or not there even are separate modules.
"Decoupling" involves changing the relationship between modules
(sometimes, creating them in the first place), typically moving things
to a more sensible abstraction. "Factoring out" is really a form of
decoupling in which smaller parts of something are turned into a
module which the original thing then interfaces with (one canonical
example is taking some bits of code, often that are very similar or
identical in many places, and moving them into a single function). To
say one has "abstracted over" some details implies that a module is
handling those details, that the details shouldn't matter, and what
does matter is the abstraction one is using.
(sometimes, creating them in the first place), typically splitting
things into two more sensible pieces that a more sensible abstraction
separates. "Factoring out" is really a form of decoupling in which
smaller parts of something are turned into a module which the original
thing then interfaces with (one canonical example is taking some bits
of code, often that are very similar or identical in many places, and
moving them into a single function). To say one has "abstracted over"
some details implies that a module is handling those details, that the
details shouldn't matter, and what does matter is the abstraction one
is using.
# -----
Consider the information this module deals in, in essence.
@ -134,13 +138,14 @@ module (from what was factored out) and some number of abstractions
application itself is a module of a different sort. (Witness that
sometimes another application will implement the same plugin API.)
One reason behind this is more practical in nature: When something is
a module unto itself, presumably it is relying on specific
abstractions, and it is possible to move this module to other contexts
(anything providing the same abstractions) or to replace it with other
modules (anything using the same abstractions).
It has a very pragmatic reason behind it: When something is a module
unto itself, presumably it is relying on specific abstractions, and it
is possible to freely change this module's internal details (provided
that it still handles the same abstractions), to move this module to
other contexts (anything providing the same abstractions), to replace
it with other modules (anything using the same abstractions).
Another reason is more abstract: When something is a module unto
It also has a more abstract reason: When something is a module unto
itself, the way it is designed and implemented often presents more
insight into the fundamentals of the problem it is solving. It
contains fewer incidental details, and more essential details.
@ -172,9 +177,10 @@ interface (similar to something like Maple or Mathematica) which:
I love notebook interfaces already because they simplify experimenting
by handling a lot of things I'd otherwise have to do manually - like
saving results and keeping them lined up with the exact code that
produced them. Jupyter adds some other use-cases find marvelous - for
instance, I can let the interpreter run on my much faster workstation,
but I can access it across the Internet from my much slower laptop.
produced them. Jupyter adds some other use-cases I find marvelous -
for instance, I can let the interpreter run on my much faster
workstation, but I can access it across the Internet from my much
slower laptop.
[[https://zeppelin.apache.org/][Apache Zeppelin]] does similar things with different languages; I just
use it less.
@ -187,12 +193,12 @@ programming-language specific package managers into a single module is
a very lofty goal, but Nix appears to do a decent job of it.
The [[https://www.lua.org/][Lua]] programming language is noteworthy here. It's written in
clean C with minimal dependencies, so it runs nearly anyplace with a a
C or C++ compiler. It's purposely very easy both to *embed* (i.e. to
put inside of a program and use as an extension language, such as for
plugins or scripting) and to *extend* (i.e. to connect with libraries
to allow their functionality to be used from Lua). [[https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/][GNU Guile]] has many
of the same properties, I'm told.
clean C with minimal dependencies, so it runs nearly anywhere that a C
or C++ compiler targets. It's purposely very easy both to *embed*
(i.e. to put inside of a program and use as an extension language,
such as for plugins or scripting) and to *extend* (i.e. to connect
with libraries to allow their functionality to be used from Lua). [[https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/][GNU
Guile]] has many of the same properties, I'm told.
We ordinarily think of object systems as something living in the
programming language. However, the object system is sometimes made a
@ -203,6 +209,19 @@ particularly if you allow dead ones created during the object-oriented
hype of the '90s. This seems to happen in systems where the object
hierarchy is in effect "bigger" than the language.
ZeroMQ is also notable here (and I know it's likely not unique, but it
is one of the better-known and the first I thought of) as a set of
cross-language abstractions for communication patterns.
Interestingly, the same iMatix behind ZeroMQ also created [[https://github.com/imatix/gsl][GSL]] and
explained its value in [[https://imatix-legacy.github.io/mop/introduction.html][Model-Oriented Programming]], for which
abstraction features heavily. I've not used GSL, and am skeptical of
its stated usefulness, but it looks like it is meant to help create
compile-time abstractions that likewise sit outside of any particular
programming language.
# TODO: Expand on this.
[[https://web.hypothes.is/][hypothes.is]] is a curious one that I find fascinating. They're trying
to factor out annotation and commenting from something that is handled
on a per-webpage basis and turn it into its own module, and I really
@ -217,6 +236,11 @@ mention...
# ???
# Also, TCP/IP and the entire notion of packet-switched networks.
# And the entire OSI 7-layer model.
# Also, caches - of all types. (CPU, disk...)
People know that I love Emacs, but I also do believe many of the
complaints on how large it is. On the one hand, it is basically its
own operating system and /within this/ it has considerable modularity.
@ -262,7 +286,9 @@ https://github.com/stevemao/left-pad/issues/4
powerful. The reason for this is that the less powerful the
language, the more you can do with the data stored in that
language. If you write it in a simple declarative from, anyone can
write a program to analyze it in many ways."
write a program to analyze it in many ways." (Languages are a kind
of abstraction - one that influences how a module is written, and
what contexts it is useful in.)
- "Self" paper & structural reification?
- I'm still not sure how this relates, but it may perhaps relate to
how *not* to make things modular (structural reification is a sort
@ -270,18 +296,22 @@ https://github.com/stevemao/left-pad/issues/4
- What by Rich Hickey?
- Simple Made Easy?
- The Value of Values?
- SICP: [[https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/sicp/book/node50.html][Modularity, Objects, and State]]
- SICP: [[https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-19.html#%25_chap_3][Modularity, Objects, and State]]
- [[https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~wcook/Drafts/2009/essay.pdf][On Understanding Data Abstraction, Revisited]]
- http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/apb.html#Baldwin-Clark -
Carliss Baldwin and Kim Clark. Design Rules, Vol 1: The Power of
Modularity. 2000. MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-024667.
- Brooks, No Silver Bullet?
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_complexity
- https://twitter.com/fchollet/status/962074070513631232
- How does this fit with /composition/? Does it?
- The ability to sensibly compose things depends on them having some
sort of well-defined, compatible boundary - right?
- Note also /decomposition/ here, as in /decomposing/ something into
parts.
- [[https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-9.html#%25_chap_1][From SICP chapter 1 intro]]: "The acts of the mind, wherein it exerts
its power over simple ideas, are chiefly these three: 1. Combining
several simple ideas into one compound one, and thus all complex
@ -292,3 +322,32 @@ https://github.com/stevemao/left-pad/issues/4
from all other ideas that accompany them in their real existence:
this is called abstraction, and thus all its general ideas are
made." -John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690)
- [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-cutting_concern][Cross-cutting concerns]], [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect-oriented_programming][aspect-oriented programming]] (as an attempt
to take tangled things and pull them into modules)
- [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns][Separation of Concerns]]
- Abstraction as an information channel... module as a what?
- Even in DOS days, simple abstractions mattered like making something
behave like a hard drive or like a filesystem in DOS. Things like
DriveSpace/DoubleSpace/Stacker worked well enough because most
applications were written to respect DOS's file access calls.
Things like HIMEM, EMM386, and QEMM worked reasonably well because
applications were written to respect DOS's dumpster fire of memory
management that I am eternally lucky to never have to touch again.
- One point I have ignored (maybe): You clearly separate the 'inside'
of a module (its implementation) from the 'outside' (that is - its
boundaries, the abstractions that it interfaces with or that it
implements) so that the 'inside' can change more or less freely
without having any effect on the outside.
- Abstractions as _contracts_ with a communicated/agreed purpose
- Abstractions as a way of reducing the work required to add
functionality (changes can be made just in the relevant modules, and
other modules do not need to change to conform)
- What is more key? Communication, information content, contracts,
details?
- [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_principle_(computer_programming)][Abstraction principle]]
- Reduce duplication of information
- [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%2527t_repeat_yourself][Don't repeat yourself]]
- [[https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aristotles-definitions/][Aristotle & theory of definitions]]
- this isn't right. I need to find the quote in the Durant book
(which will probably have an actual source) that pertains to how
specific and how general a definition must be