https://futureofcoding.org/ logo
Join Slack
Powered by
Renaming the community
# administrivia
i
Here's a big one. Apologies in advance to everyone for the unbidden rabbit hole. I think we need to rename the community. Future of Coding doesn't aptly reflect what this community values, or the sort of work we do together. • We spend more time studying the past than we do dreaming about the future. • We don't care much about code — very narrow. We care more about computation, broadly, but also so much beyond that: art and culture, social dynamics, systems and power, physics, aesthetics, time, games, and more — and how all of those things relate to the computer (though even that is too narrow). What we care about is very hard to pin down, because it's made of up of many parts that themselves aren't pinned down. • The name (deliberately, I believe) alludes to Bret Victor's talk The Future of Programming. Like much of Bret's work, this talk is a quietly scathing critique of the dominant culture of programming. I think that that aspect of Bret's work really resonates with folks here. But the name Future of Coding doesn't capture the fact that Bret was being sardonic. I see lots of people taking the name too literally. • Speaking of taking the name literally, it's really pretentious. There's a real problem with self-importance in startup culture, and with a name like "Future of Coding" we sound like a bunch of growth hackers. That ain't us. This is the sort of topic where we'll probably never all agree on a single thing. Ultimately it'll have to come down to a vote, or someone will just have to pick something. It's like the "let's move the community off Slack" (which I'm still very interested in doing), which was.. a lot of work, and not fun, but important, even if we haven't actually made that move yet. I'm interested in keeping this community alive and active for a long time, so I think it's worth challenging ourselves to keep making the community itself better and truer to its own values. In particular, I'd like to use this as an opportunity to challenge any sense that this is a community primarily for white startup dudes. We have that reputation, and it's going to take effort to shake it. This is an opportunity to make that effort. I'm opening up this discussion very broadly at first. Please share your reflections on why the current name is bad (or, hell, good). If you have ideas for a better name, that'd be fun too. If you have meta-meta level thoughts about whether renaming things is a good idea, that's welcome also. This is going to be a messy process, and that's fine.
💡 3
🙂 2
👍 8
i
I suspect better names exist, but I’m not sure moving to one would really be worth the effort. It’s worth asking what concretely we’d hope to get out of doing so. There are already over 1700 people in the #thinking-together, I don’t imagine the community of people actively interested in the space would be much larger than that, so it’s not clear to me that we’d be hoping to get a significantly large audience.
👍 1
Which is not to say that for various reasons the community fails to appeal to lots of interesting folks (in the space or otherwise) - that’s assuredly true as well, but I don’t think the name (or anything else) fixes that. Cultures are a series of tradeoffs that won’t make everyone happy.
a
I agree the "coding" bit has always been oddly narrow. I'm not sure about the other points. We have good reason to believe that studying the past is important for building a worthwhile future. As for pretentiousness, IMO a certain degree of egotism is required just to believe your actions can make coding/whatever better for significant numbers of people. Obviously there are limits, but I don't think an aspirational name for the community is over the line. So much the better if you can find a name that tempers it with humility (such as is needed for learning from the past 🙂), but I wouldn't abandon that entirely. I'm a relative newcomer and not the most active participant, so take all this with the appropriate-sized chunk of salt.
🍰 2
i
@ibdknox Personally, I am less concerned with growth and more concerned with strength. I'd like the community to have a strong set of values, and to exude those values. I think the current name does a poor job of that.
👆 3
i
Sounds like the real discussion is around those values then, the name is just a function over them.
💯 3
i
You could say "the name" is a convenient hook for a discussion about what our values are, and how we reflect them.
c
My input would be to take 3 months, and see if you still feel strongly about it – honestly, it's just a name, and most people are simply following a pointer of some kind to get here, and will continue to, regardless of the name. Coding is probably seen as many things, including Building – and it's good to signify that this isn't just an ivory tower exercise, but a community of people in progress on something. Future is also fine, better than signifying the retro sort-of-fetish that is definitely in the water. We're building, it will be different, and oriented to next generations of builders. Future is a good word. And reading the name closely, I still love the question the name asks of us: what will coding things on computer be like, especially when we stretch our imagination.
➕ 7
🍰 1
i
At the risk of drawing heat (hah), Kartik suggested Systems Thinking, which I quite like. It's already taken by another Slack and unrelated (inactive) podcast, but I don't think that matters. • I like that it's a nod to intersectionality, systemic bias, power dynamics, and other topics that are of very high cultural importance that tend to be a bit siloed. I like that these concerns are increasingly emulsified into our community — not the center of our focus, but something that we are continually mindful of. • I like that it is easily about computation, but just as easily not. • I like that it ties sweetly into the name Thinking Together. • I like that it's not too on-the-nose, not too vague, not too narrow or wide. It's a bit of a goldilocks, to my taste.
❤️ 3
k
Some ideas for new names, in case that helps make the thought experiment more concrete: • Convivial Tools • Systems Thinking
🍰 4
i
fwiw, “systems thinking” is pretty tightly tied with Donella Meadows and is an actual discipline (a formalism for how systems behave based on feedback loops) that doesn’t seem related to us to capture the majority of what happens here.
➕ 6
d
I think these are all excellent ideas @Ivan Reese. I have some experience with sociocracy (dynamic governance, consent-based decision-making), I've given a few talks about it, and I would be happy to facilitate it if folks think that'd be better than a vote (tyranny of the majority) or someone picking something unilaterally. I do agree with @ibdknox though. It will take more than a new name to solidify / strengthen the community. Values / aim alignment sounds like a perfect next step (and happens to be one of the foundations of sociocratic circles). That said, I personally don't feel particularly strongly about the name, good or bad, though I am currently digging the term "Cybernetics" (the original usage, not the sci-fi concept). Cybernetics as a name has the advantage of being simultaneously history-reflecting and future-facing. And I think it might actually be another way of saying "Systems Thinking" without the potential baggage?
a
"Something something computing systems" might be appropriate. "Systems" is a word at about the right level of abstraction/granularity.
😆 1
i
@ibdknox Of course :) But I think the as-coined meaning of systems thinking is actually poetically representative of what we do here. This community is like a PID with Java+Eclipse as an anti-setpoint.
@David Brooks
dynamic governance, consent-based decision-making [...] would be happy to facilitate it if folks think that'd be better than a vote
I would love to learn more about this. I think that it might solve a real problem here. Would you be willing to spin up a thread in #thinking-together explaining how this works?
Cybernetics
Yep, another good one. I think we'll be somewhat spoiled for choice with names that are meaningful and symbolic, and the bigger challenge will be figuring out how to make a distinct identity out of it. (Systems Thinking stumbles in that regard too.) Kartik's other suggestion, Convivial Tools, also seems well thought-out in terms of symbolism and relevance. It might bother the Salon folks a bit, though. Dang these practicality hurdles.
We can solve every problem with a pun: Systems Winking. Who said tech folks were afraid whimsey?
❤️ 4
s
how about a mix? "The Convivial Systems Slack" has a nice ring to it
j
As an alternative to conviviality, I like Richard Gabriele's/Christopher Alexander's use of habitability. I think habitable systems capture much of what I see people working on here. I also don't know any other community using that metaphor.
❤️ 5
amiga tick 1
s
@Jimmy Miller I love that, it has a very cozy feeling that I like, and also I think clearly captures the correct content.
➕ 3
🙂 1
j
I will say, I also associate systems thinking with much more than what we do here. I subscribe to the systems and cybernetics new books podcast for example. https://newbooksnetwork.com/category/science-technology/systems-and-cybernetics That’s the kind of stuff I’d expect.
k
It just so happens that I've been going through a process of whittling down the design choices of my project in an effort to attempt a reboot. At this point I'm basically down to two guiding principles: habitability and auditability. To the extent that it's relevant, I think you need both. Building convivial tools isn't just a matter of coming up with something habitable; the community has to take an active part in its evolution to preserve habitability. There has to be some level of communal effort from everyone, like in a coop. I think (a lay attempt at systems thinking) that this is the part all the research on tailorable software and community adaptation from the 90s (https://tcher.tech/publications/PhilipTchernavskij_PhDThesis.pdf; chapter 2) misses: a heterogeneous population with some expert programmers is unstable if there's no path for people to become expert. Over time you either end up with the experts leaving the group or gaining increasing power and growing unaccountable. (Counter-examples appreciated.) But -- oh noes -- is auditability now going to have connotations of Scientology? This stuff is hard. I'd appreciate suggestions for alternative terms that have proved themselves resistant to connotation-drift the way "conviviality" has.
🤯 1
Incidentally, I totally missed the connection between "Future of Programming" and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pTEmbeENF4▾

. Not a talk I go back to often. So I'm partly responsible for taking the name unironically. I don't do well with irony; this is a known bug.
🤗 1
t
I am a naming freak. And yesterday wrote a 2-page rant about the problems of 
workers-rs
(https://github.com/cloudflare/workers-rs) naming in CF discord - naming stuff is really really important for me. So I feel the hassle naming challenges create. By no means it’s a rabit hole not worth diving into. Please give me few days to arrange my thoughts on this, will lay them down in a google doc and share it here once it’s done.
👍 2
❤️ 1
f
I think the name of a community itself is important, but as already mentioned, it is not the only thing that will attract or put someone off. A short mission statement or longer manifesto could probably help new members to figure out if this is for them. At the same time knowing that the community will constantly reshape with every new contributor. For me personally, I’ve been drawn here through the Podcast (including research episodes and Max/MSP and other historic references). I think that I want to study the past to be able to create something for tomorrow. Reflecting on past failures and successes seems more valuable than following the latest hot new startups on Twitter. And by that, the term “Future” isn’t all that bad as it really gets me thinking about what that might mean. I think for a community, the phrasing “Future of…” has positive connotations and puts you in a forward thinking mode. On the other hand, it may sound elitist or too big of a deal and put people of. I often had an issue with the term “coding” because it is a lot more narrow than, e.g. programming. At least to me it feels a bit ironic because I hope that coding is not the future. On the other hand, if you think about “code” as anything that stands for something else (symbols, signs, …) then I realize that almost any form of communication is code. What I find most interesting about this community is that it’s about people. People who made and make software. I’m learning about those humans through listening to the Podcast (often interviews) and by reading about the stories behind programming system like Smalltalk, Fabrik, etc. — and the best part today is that some of those people are actually hanging out here! That’s such a valuable thing for me to develop as a person, especially when I’m not working at one of the big tech corporations. Some random ideas referencing books and other work: “Past Visions” “Smalltalk” “Designing Programmes” “Decoded Code” “Dense Discovery” I’m thinking that I like the term “Decode” as in “making something more accessible by revealing the inner workings” Decode as in taking something that is hard to understand or obfuscated and making it legible by re-writing it in a humane way. I think that word (maybe in combination with something else) has potential to make the community more open/inclusive/approachable/…
🍰 1
d
There are 2 hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-1 errors. --Leon Bambrick
😁 2
🙄 2
s
@Florian Schulz
I often had an issue with the term “coding” because it is a lot more narrow than, e.g. programming. At least to me it feels a bit ironic because I hope that coding is not the future.
I feel very much like this. I often think of FoC as Future of Computing. However, it's true that we're not just about imagining the future. One name popped into my head when I think about what I see in this community everyday, whether it is someone asking a question or showing their work or discussing some piece history: Adventures in Computing Everything from Smalltalk to Hest to Mu to ... it fits this idea. And it's not just individual adventures - human society is itself exploring computing (the computer revolution hasn't happened) so we're also trying to figure out the larger adventure we are all part of. The computer adjacent stuff like institutions and incentives kind gets covered by "adventures". I do think "computing" is the essential shared theme for us.
❤️ 7
f
@shalabh Adventures … wonderful term!
➕ 3
t
@Ivan Reese - in practical terms, the potential renaming would include: a) Rename of this slack community? b) Registering new domain name and transfering all content/setting up redirect from https://futureofcoding.org/ ? c) Renaming https://futureofcoding.org/episodes/ all of the podcasting platforms? d) Any changes to https://github.com/ivanreese/visual-programming-codex (or this is your personal project?) ? Which of above and maybe something I’ve not mentioned?..
k
While I agree with all the criticism about the name, and while I like many of the ideas proposed above, I also have to point out that I probably wouldn't want to be part of a community whose topics could be described by a single term over a time span of more than a few months. So it's either "pick a name as a label, and stick with it" or "let's change our name every year". I am fine with either one.
i
@Konrad Hinsen I'd love to hear your thoughts on what makes for a good name. @Tomas Čerkasas Likely A, B, and C. The codex is a personal project. I'm excited to read your doc! (Or whatever form your thinking on this takes). @shalabh I like Adventures a lot! @Florian Schulz As for a short mission statement, what do you think of the top paragraph on the website? Or, perhaps, the opening paragraphs of the CoC?
👍 3
f
@Ivan Reese I think the mission statement and code of conduct are really good. Also the Slack member handbook helped me a lot. They set the tone and pace that for me is welcoming, considered, slow. So the name is not as important because even if it doesn‘t cover everything, there sure is a lot of supporting material already!
🍰 1
m
I was thinking that a good exercise/starting point that may get a result we can use is to try to find a "tagline" for the community, to help contextualize the name, I like how IETF's "we believe in rough consensus and running *code*" tells you a lot about them. a micromanifesto, or maybe something longer, but it should be easy to remember, I also like python's "import this/zen"
❤️ 3
🍰 1
k
@Ivan Reese I am not sure names matter that much. For people inside the community, any name just becomes a label in their wider world. For people outside of the community, it's communication beyond the name that matters more. Why do people come here? I bet it's not because they saw a reference to our community and liked the name. It's more likely (definitely in my case) seeing the community mentioned in a specific context, by a person they respect, etc. Cultural bias statement: I live in France, where renaming organizations is a national sport. The net effect is that people lose track of who is who. I have several friends who can't remember what the current name of their employer is.
🙃 1
😂 5
➕ 4
m
a trick would be to rename it to FoC and "fill" the acronym with another meaning until we retire the fact that it's an acronym 😄
❤️ 8
t
@Mariano Guerra implications for 
FoC
acronym also crossed my mind as one of the side effects of potential name change 🙂
s
In my brain, I’ve already replaced Future of Coding as Future of Computing? Future of Personal Computing? haha As a data scientist & viz geek, I like the word computing more than coding. For me, code sometimes gets in the way and is more a means to end. I want to compute more than I want to code! Tell the computer to simulate things that are too painful for me to create by hand
➕ 5
k
To push back on that, I think it's not about the computation but the side effects. If only we could just focus on the computation. We wouldn't be living then in this eldritch software-eaten world.
s
for sure, I guess thats why I thought Personal Computing was a way to nuance it. But its a good point
👍 1
Humane Computing? or heck maybe call ourselves the Engelbart Society 😉
d
If you mention Humane Computing, I would have thought you'd go with the Raskin Society 😉
o
First, I must say that I also have the time-consuming tendency to think a lot about naming things. I'm not very good at it, but feel that it is important and difficult. And of course, sometimes, I'm thinking that "Future of Coding" is not perfect and that we should be able to find something better. And I like lots of terms used in this thread (like adventure, conviviality, habitability and auditability). But, after thinking about it, I guess "Future of Coding" has the virtue of being simple, direct and not too much ambiguous. Especially, Future is very engaging and Coding is clear for everyone. I remember when I first saw the FoC website, the name made me think this looks like a place which is about stuff I want to explore. Working on a better programming experience. And being in the community, reading the discussions confirm that and shows me the other topics around this main subject. About "Coding", even as I also find that it is too narrow (my interests are on "Future of Programming Activities and Tools for Thinking"), "code" has the advantage of being used a lot and with a relatively clear meaning. Another point is that it is very easily understood by non English native speakers. At least in France where I live. When I talk about this community around me, and I use the name "Future of Coding", I'm confident that people can grasp roughly what it is. Because the word "code" is used a lot here to talk about programming, computing, etc.
🍰 1
💯 1
👍 3
i
For what it’s worth, here are some loose, personal counterarguments to the above claims that the name doesn’t matter. It matters to me. @Chris G said to take 3 months — I’ve been bothered by the name for 3 years. “Code” is not the rally point for how we relate to the computer! It doesn’t capture what we’re about, and it’s not poetic enough to invite curiosity. It nags at me. It puts us in poor company. When I invite someone to come on the podcast — especially someone whose work is way out there — I sincerely worry that the name will put them off. Y’all… I can’t invite Ted Nelson to come on a show with a name like this. Also, when you google “future of coding” you see a lot of spammy, low-value, empty hype. You don’t see a lot of deep, thoughtful, reflective, slow, considered motion toward a delightful rebirth of the world of software. It has a bad reputation. I’ve seen a handful of instances (more than 5, less than 20) where folks have complained about the community being an unwelcoming place, and then responders to those complaints have pointed to the name as a sign of hubris. “No wonder you had a bad time — with a name like ‘Future of Coding’ who do they think they are?” I think these criticisms are on point — three years ago, this community hadn’t yet defined itself as having any values at all, let alone that being welcoming was a major one. We had folks like Edward in here shouting down anyone who didn’t agree with his point of view. There was an attitude held by a few especially loud folks that technical merit was all that mattered. Our community has (present tense) a bad rap, which it earned fair and square. That bad rap is what people will see when they search for our name on social media (mixed in with a handful of folks championing us — maybe it’s 50-50). Changing the name gives us a modicum of distance from that old reputation. It won’t magically fix our bad reputation, but it’s paddling in the right direction.
❤️ 2
💯 3
💡 1
@ogadaki‘s point about the applicability to non-native English speakers is significant, and a great lens. I’d like to say that it’s another argument in favour of going with a name that’s more broad, open to interpretation, poetic, so that it doesn’t matter if folks don’t “get” it — but I have no idea what the best approach is with the non-English lens.
➕ 4
o
Oh, I didn't know about the bad reputation! 😦 Sure, that's a very good reason to change the name, to turn the page. Especially if the change comes with a clear communication on the values.
but I have no idea what the best approach is with the non-English lens
Well, maybe at least, with all non-native English speakers from this community trying to consider the name suggestions from their own "native language" lens? I guess we are several ones. Idea to count us: for non-native English speakers that are OK with that, maybe you can put an emoji for your native language (well, country, as there are no emoji for languages)?
🇫🇷 1
🇩🇪 3
🇱🇹 1
k
I also like giving folks from non-English places more of a vote in choosing the name. Nicolas your point about 'coding' was very interesting.
👍 1
c
It sounds like there's a fair bit of stress pushing this conversation and decision. That's not an ideal basis from which to steer a community, but if it's reality, we should face it, and that doesn't mean something very positive can't come from it. Future of Computing would be an exciting upgrade, my vote. I think the name should have a geek "qwan" to it, a bit of a siren call that implies fun, for our kinds at least. This is hobby time for most of us – we're here for the fun of it. Best of luck on the decision. I'm in, regardless. 🍺
❤️ 8
s
Based on many strong remarks against "coding", maybe we should be have been called The Anti-Coding Coding Club 😁
🙃 3
I'm in, regardless - @Chris G
Yeah, me too. I strongly agree with @Ivan Reese’s points about renaming. It's a brand thing. I'm not sure we can capture the values in a name but certainly a new name brings a fresh new brand. I'm going to just throw some more non serious names at this thread, based on the "poetic" prompt, to see what sticks or evokes some other ideas: Dream Machines (from Ted Nelson) Hello, Software! The Real Computer Quest Deprogramming Programming Switch the Angle I have my own interpretations of these, but I'll hold of on those.
👍 3
🍰 1
ok, so what if we rename and move off slack at the same exact time?
➕ 2
i
Not opposed to that, even as a joke. But I think that deserves a separate thread.
👍 3
s
part of my day job is participating in a lot of communities, esp. open source ones. Many live in Slack but there are definitely downsides too (mostly the benefit seems to be people have Slack open ‘during work hours’ + its nice for live-discussions … but longevity tradeoff / deep discussion is a tradeoff)
👍 1
s
Yes but lets ignore that proposal for now, specially in this thread.
➕ 3
j
Some suggestions (at a range of seriousness) Habitable Computing Society #jsforever A few small STEPS Sketchpads and Turtles Dionysian Computing Society Fauvist Computing Collective
❤️ 6
k
@Jimmy Miller While I personally like some of your suggestions, I see some of them as exclusive because of insider jokes. We do want to attract people who have never heard of STEPS or Sketchpad before.
➕ 2
i
No Assembly Required
❤️ 1
Speculative Execution
👍 3
Eso Pangs
f
Just my 2 cents as I have only recently joined. I think a name should try to convey what the community is about with no other context given. I agree that "Future of Coding" is definitive not perfect, but I think it conveys the general direction quite well. So while I am all for making the "Coding" part wider scoped (for example Future of Programming/Computing), I would shy away from naming it something esoteric like (just 2 random names I have seen above) Habitable Computing Society or Systems Thinking. In both cases my guess of what the community is about (with no other context) would have been further off the mark.
💯 4
j
Yeah, there is a real tradeoff in doing that. By making the name descriptive without context, it invites people to bring their preconceived notions. That can be a good thing, if their ideas line up with what is really there. But if those ideas don't, it sets people up for disappointment and/or frustration. I'll give two examples from philosophy podcasts that I listen to. History of Philosophy without any gaps The Partially Examined Life The former is very descriptive and you immediately know what it is about. It doesn't require any inside knowledge. And what you get matches the label, it is very much a straight forward telling of the history of philosophy. The partially examined life is a reference. You have to know a particular reference in order to get it. It also, in absence of context doesn't tell you what it is. But that is part of the point. They are looking to do something different. Their name reflects this. If you have some insider knowledge, you might have some expectations, but ultimately not too many. So I agree that most names other than things like "future of _" will be more opaque, but opacity isn't always bad.
💯 3
i
For anyone wondering about my plan: I'm going to let this thread keep going until it runs out of steam, and then give it a thorough read through, then probably run a small survey to gauge sentiment, and then based on how that goes, well, we'll see. Similar to how we handled the question of moving away from Slack, though in this case I don't think the short-term risk is as high because it's not like anyone is going to be blocked from participating due to the name (oh no now that I've said this out loud I've probably awoken some spectre oh no)
❤️ 2
👍 1
c
Spectre? Did someone say Engelbart three times? 😰
🤣 1
d
I think the word "future" is fine, but I do tend to agree that placing it at the beginning, e.g. "future of [something]" feels a bit off, whereas "[computing a brighter / better / something] future" to me sounds more inviting. Just my $0.02
👍 2
m
"Thinking About Thinking with Tools" 🐢
o
Just a random thought. There is a term that I like: "Futurism". In fact I already use it as my tag/folder/list name for everything about my "FoC" interests. But • How to use it in a name? With which word? [Programming/Comuting/Coding] Futurism"? It doesn't sound that good. • It can be seen as a reference to the Futurism artistic and social movement. Can we live with this reference? Because there are good and less good things about it. I came to it with the book the Art Of Noise by Luigi Russolo, which I really like and it is a pre dada/surrealism movement. On the downside some of the Italian Futursits were related to fascism, even if there were also anti-fascits in the Futurism movement.
f
Infinite Loop ♾️ We’re a curious community interested in anything between the history and future of computing. (Just thinking about all these things that repeat over and over again, what’s old is new again, reinventing the wheel, etc)
j
message has been deleted
👌 3
🍰 1
o
Damned, the futurological.org domain is already occupied by a futurist computing technology from the past that is presently broken! 😅
🙃 3
i
Thought Technology
👌 4
c
@ogadaki So clearly there aren't time machines in the future 😞
😁 1
n
I agree with the perspective of a few others here: It's important for the community name to be simple enough that a person who randomly encounters it can immediately gauge what to expect. "Future of Coding" conveys the gist of the community very well, despite being a bit too narrow. Given the community has been around for a few years now, tweaking the name will probably do more harm than good. Renaming would only make sense if it were part of a larger pivot, such as migrating to Zulip and/or changing how we operate.
🤔 1
But I'm not sure if the community is "engaged" enough to coordinate any kind of pivot. We'd need something to invigorate us.
o
I really like how "Thought Technology" captures the subject. I particularly like how it can also includes non-computer technologies (like, hmm, books). Not sure if it is a good fit for a name, though. Other variations: using the plural "Technologies", or "Thought Technologists", maybe appending "Society" or "Community". Example: "Thoughts Technologists Society".
s
Mind Material
👍 1
🤔 1
m
Some ideas for alternate names: "Future of creating software" "Future of code/programming/compute thinking" .. The current name really clicked with me, and I think that's why I joined. If I remember correctly I came here because I found the visual programming codex on google and somewhere found a link to future of coding. I am not sure if I joined if the name didn't click with me or would be too vague or not specific enough. Although I think a good description on our community website will help to keep a low joining barrier if the new name will be less specific to the coding part.
j
For what it is worth, in the early days I almost bounced off because I felt a disconnect between the name and what was really happening. Steve’s particular vision of the future is not one that clicked with me. I don’t think any of us here think we all share the same idea about what the future of coding/programming/computation is. If anything we exploring futures or really alternatives. In some ways that is better today, but in others it isn’t. We have a few more views represented here, but I can certainly think of programmers who would come here and given the name be disappointed. But what a name can do is broaden or narrow things. In some sense the “future of _” broadens and narrows. If the name was something like Thought Technology, I would have been posting things about tools for thinking quite a while ago. As it is now, I usually consider that not quite what this community is about.
💯 3
v
Bicycles of the mind.
💯 1
Coding is incidental imho.
i
We could lean in to the lack of gender diversity, and the fact that I don't think there are any teenagers here, and go with: Lambdads Eh? Eh?
🐑 1
🤣 6
o
External Mind(s) Technologies (or Tools)
s
Memex Meme Makers
👏 3
j
Code Rethought
amiga tick 2
c
Excellent observations Ivan, I’m looking forward to find a better fitting description for our community here
Towards a better relationship with technology?
Solar Punk in the making?
d
I'm a big fan of solarpunk myself, but I think this community is independent of context. The way I think about this community (take it with a grain of salt) is we ask "what COULD computing be like, if we let go of any preconceived notions?"
💯 3
a
Avant Garde... Generative... Frontier of... (has colonial baggage) Artisanal... (possibly appropriative) Allies of... The concept of "coding" (writing, design, mapmaking, cryptography, biochemistry) doesn't throw me off as too narrow, though contextually (lots of folks here are computer programmers) that's where the mind goes?
🍰 1
➕ 1
w
Interesting the connotations people hav for "coding." For me, it began as a diminutive of "programming" but in the years since, "coding" just seems to be the word that kids use these days, "programming" itself being awkward in its own way — multiple 'r's? And if not "computer programming," it's something about the scheduling — or listing of the schedule as in "read the program to see who's on next."
i
Lots of folks here (dozens!) wanna do "programming" without doing any "coding". Anyone feel the inverse is true?
m
until really recently I thought coding and programming were almost the same, now I see coding as "how we do programming now", and programming as the general problem solving activity that may in the future not involve coding
👍 4
🎯 1
a
I think programming is still a bit too narrow. Or is it just me who ties operating systems (internals and UX) into the same bundle? We also seem to be interested in info management tools like the Memex mentioned above.
k
@Andrew F Why does tying something extra in make the term narrower? My goal is to make it easier to start with an info manager and keep drilling down well into the OS. The only limit should be your own curiosity.
a
It doesn't, it just makes the already relatively narrow term "programming" less applicable :). I should have put it in quotes above, but I'll leave it for clarity. Indeed, I have similar goals to yours.
d
The community I want to belong to would be called Convivial Computing. • "Computing" is broader than "Coding", it also includes Englebart's vision and Kay's "Personal Dynamic Media", both of which give users full control over what the computer does and gives full ability to customize, configure, specify problems and create solutions, with or without "coding". • "Convivial" is more specific than "Future": it describes what I want the future of Computing to be. It's about a computing infrastructure that fully and unconditionally serves the needs of users and their communities. The word "convivial" conveys a social aspect that isn't explicit in Raskin's "humane", or in Iverson's "tools of thought".
💯 9
o
I really like "Convivial Computing", especially because of this social aspect. Although because of its simplicity. Though it is a more obscure naming than "Future of Coding"-like names which are not perfect but is easily understood outside of the community.
k
"Convivial Computing" is definitely what brought me here, but I have always had the impression that this community is less focused, more like "let's play with new ideas and see where we get".
💡 1
o
From the international view, in particular from French, computing is less understandable while code (and coding) which is already used a lot. Moreover, there is no proper translation for Computing (in the sense we use it here), there's Informatique which is a very broad term or calcul for the calculus aspect of computing. As an illustration: while I was writing this I went to wikipedia page for Computing and look what the French equivalent is for this page, and there is none! There are for Deutsch, Español, etc., but not for French. Interesting... 🤔
d
Right, so we would need to create (another?) Convivial Computing Manifesto, put it on the front page of the web site, publicize it. Our social media people would use the #ConvivialComputing hashtag. It's a pretty rare combination of words that should be easily googled and that not many people are using. Domain names and other IDs are still available. We can take this available identifier and bind our meaning to it. Some considerations for Ivan if we choose a new name.
d
I've lately been using the metaphor of plumbing. Electricity flowing through circuits is very analogous to water flowing through pipes. The metaphor breaks down a bit with EM fields and metaprogramming, but it's pretty fun to think about. Anyway, I like to think of "programming" as simply hooking up a variety of pipes in such a manner as to do useful work. No idea if this is helpful in the context of naming the community, but IMHO I think "programming == plumbing" is a nice way to think of it, as plumbing is generally seen as a lot more accessible to the layperson than programming.
k
Yes, that analogy is often useful. During my years at Google managing big data pipelines I often called myself a "code plumber", constantly called to inspect leaks in these huge data pipes. However it's not universal. For example, think about how to apply it to a spreadsheet. You could imagine a spreadsheet as a static mesh of pipes that connect up the grid of cells, but a formula like 
=SUM(A1:D8)
is actually doing all the interesting stuff (packet switching?) outside the pipes. And we can't just carve out a special case for spreadsheets. In general it's hard to visualize late-bound code as pipes. Imagine a higher-order function like map. Even at the lowest levels, think about the fact that the current at the base of a transistor affects whether a current flows between emitter and collector. The key isn't the pipe effect. The key is the switch effect. On a more abstract level, I think the pipe metaphor corresponds to operational semantics. The other metaphor available is math (denotational or axiomatic semantics). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics_(computer_science) You're right that the metaphor makes computing seem more accessible. But I think it hides too much of the "essential strangeness" of computers. Metaphors dumb down computers.
i
We are currently in a tough spot because "Future of Coding" is too similar to Bret's talk "Future of Programming". Convivial Computing seems to have the same problem — there's already the Convivial Computing Salon, with a fair bit over overlap between those folks and our community. So while I quite like this name, I don't think we can use it.
❤️ 1
k
Though that Salon was a one-time thing that's over a year ago at this point..
For me the biggest test for a name would be: who here thinks it doesn't adequately represent their reason to be here (while the current name does). Regarding French: I doubt there exists a single term that will work across all languages. Perhaps we explicitly leave room to translate it in every other language?
👍 2
d
Any idea that is big enough to turn into a general movement will have multiple independent groups working under the same banner. Also, why not ask the organizers of the Convivial Computing Salon if this interferes with their future plans, since some of them are on this slack. @jonathoda @Bosmon @Brian Hempel
👍 1
i
Oh, that was a 1-off? I thought it was a regular thing. In that case, this name should absolutely be on the table. I love it.
k
Ah, here's the link for the series: https://2020.programming-conference.org/series/salon
j
@Ivan Reese Convivial Computing Salon is on hiatus but may return. Speaking for myself, I have no problem if you want to adapt the term. Name clashes and subtle differentiations are natural.
❤️ 4
I've noticed there is relatively less interest in the end user programming channel. I get more of a Tools for Thought vibe here. I think of conviviality as being non-expert.
k
That's really interesting. Doesn't even conviviality require some expertise to set up? One example from Illich (which I disagree with) is that the telephone is structurally convivial. Presumably Illich meant after the experts had set it up.. All these categories blur together for me. Different lenses on a single elephant.
🍰 2
YATACC: Yet another attempt at convivial computing
😆 1
👆 1
d
I don't see a conflict between convivial computing and expertise. Anybody who becomes good at using a computer to accomplish their goals has gained expertise, and that's equally true if you are using convivial software.
Illich's "Tools for Conviviality" is about power structures: who has power and who doesn't. Illich talks about systems of technology being used to take power and agency away from individuals and to give that power and agency to large institutions. I want computers to be tools for thought, capable of "augmenting human intellect". I want computers and technology to give the user more power. I oppose technology that takes power away from users. There are already social movements addressing bits and pieces of this. Open source/Free software addresses one issue. The activism against walled gardens and for decentralized computing addresses other issues.
👍 4
👍🏾 1
s
I got a winner: "Web 4.0"
😂 5
👻 1
k
For me, "convivial" is absolutely not the same as "end-user". The latter term (which I dislike) presupposes a distinction between "professional programmers" and "mere users", whereas convivial technology is something that everyone can own to the degree they need. My own situation is perhaps a good illustration: I am computational scientist. I write a lot of code, but writing code is not the core of my professional activity. I write code to do a specific job, a job that's far to specialized to create a market for professional software developers. Most but not all of the code I write is situated software, adapted to a very specific problem, to a specific kind of data, to a particular scientific instrument, etc. What people like myself need is infrastructure technology that supports their work, rather then enslaving them with endless ecosystem churn.
👆 1
👍 7
d
I know I’m late but Convivial + Habitable = Cozy Computing
😯 2
😄 4
👍 1
d
ooohhh... "Cozy Computing" ... that brings to mind so many wonderful things. I love this.
☕ 3
🍪 2
➕ 1
🧣 1
i
[It's not "late" until I actually get around to synthesizing this thread, hah. It's on the list. New podcast episode first.]
🙂 3
j
I love the suggestion. But also find it hilarious in light of the latest hest episode. Cozy Mosh Pit Computing is my new suggestion.
🍰 1
😅 1
d
@Jimmy Miller what is hest? is it a tv show?
j
It's @Ivan Reese's podcast about the programming language he is working on. https://ivanish.ca/hest-podcast/
🍻 2
s
Oh, fun, totally missed this interesting thread; been away for too long. After the grand channel renaming I have high hopes and a lot of confidence that a great new name worthy of a community that is eager to dream up convivial computing/programming futures will be found. 🤞
🍰 2
o
To keep this thread going and add my 2 cents. I think this is a needed discussion and one that I’m happy to see. I agree with basically all of @Ivan Reese’s critiques and concerns. If we’re talking about a small change to match the scope better, I think going from “Coding” to “Computing” is a great fit, as many have said already. I already swap these out in my head when I hear “Future of Coding”. As for a more radical shift, I agree that “Systems” is a very appropriate scope, and adaptable. It also has a solid foundation (Systems sciences, etc) and I think is a less misleading term than “coding”. We all care about systems, but only some of us care about the “coding” part. How to make a name out of it I’m less sure. Cybernetics is also an interesting choice, but while it’s one I use a fair bit in my work I don’t know if It’s one that matches how this community sees itself, but that could change! Cybernetics, especially second-order cybernetics, is deeply concerned with the interaction between people and systems. This relationship is certainly essential to what we want to do: change the relationship between people and computing. From the scale of individuals, groups, society, etc. The circular feedback loop here is what makes this ‘second order’ cybernetics fyi (as in, cybernetics applied to itself). It’s also the study of self-organisation in complex systems, this part I really like. And I’d even posit we need a far stronger focus on this as a community if we want to see things change. A slight shift from individual FoC projects to also include systems that enable self-organisation (communication, collaboration, coordination, knowledge synthesis, etc) would be a welcome shift. Put succinctly, I think there is no FoC without cybernetics. Veered off a bit from naming towards community identity, but felt relevant. I like this discussion, hoping it continues!
❤️ 2
🍰 1
c
Thank you for explicit naming that this is basically a quest for identity… which is important
n
I think switching to the term "future of computing" would make it less clear that we are interested in the act of creating software rather than merely using computers. Ideally, any new title would still refer to the act of software creation.
s
future of computering
👍 1
😁 1
the most general / catch all. Its just, what on earth will using a computer look like down the road
w
"Computering" feels like a remarkably good term because it: (1) captures the nuance building/using, (2) feels human centered, it's not about machines, it's about people do with them, (3) at least to me, needs no further defining, (4) maintains the FoC acronym, (5) it's awkward in the same way that trying to feel our way toward this future is awkward.
❤️ 1
😭 1
a
I don't know if it was intended as a joke, but I read "computering" as a direct reference to a certain infamous Reddit story. Honestly it might still fit, but I didn't think that's the tone we're going for. :)
s
I’ve never heard of this, but honestly this actually reinforces the idea of “computering” even more. Computers should work for everyone, be expressive, etc and the IT help desk conversation (if anything) emphasizes the helplessness the person had! .. .that we hope they wouldn’t in the future. So we’re able to take that energy and re-cast it 🙂 seems like a win to me!
🤣 1
c
Strategery of Computering
k
I think @Nick Smith makes a good point above that "computering" is generic enough to admit passive usage. However, the opposite of passive usage isn't necessarily creating software. I think the "create" framing perpetuates our culture's bias to think more about writing rather than reading code, to valorize creating new simple solutions rather than understanding the complexity of existing solutions. So what is the opposite of passive usage? Best phrasing I can think of so far: having more agency over our computers. And agency can change without adding/removing programming; think about all the software on your computer that auto-updates and changes things on you. That materially has reduced agency, now that you don't get to decide when to hit ok/cancel on that annoying dialog. All without changing how (un)programmable your computer is.
s
I still dig the personal / home cooking / woodworking analogy. “Personal Computering”? “Home Computing”? Home Computering? 🤷
k
My mastodon likes 'smol' 🙂 Situated software. But that does seem like a smaller tent that doesn't cover everyone here..
s
The core unique idea to computing really feels like “simulation”. Personal Simulation? Even though the ‘quantified self’ movement didn’t really take off, there was a bit of a personal end-user empowerment angle which was neat. 🤔
a
A favourite word of mine in these contexts is "tinkering" -- it encapsulates the mode well for me; more specific than play, but equally open ended, possibly casual, implies investment and depth too, is technologically oriented when it needs to be. Something that invites tinkering bestows (ha!) generates agency.
💯 2
j
Homegrown software club
🌿 2
i
The convivial folks are wrestling with this same "naming the scene" dilemma: https://twitter.com/stephenrkell/status/1471898241545510914
👍 3
👍🏽 1
k
It's bringing home to me how irreversible this stuff is. One way we could proceed: kill this Slack, spin up three others, see what gets all the activity. 💥 It's destructive, and we'll lose something to friction. On the other hand, perhaps it helps future contributors at the expense of us incumbents. Would be a selfless act.
🧬 1
👀 2
i
And here I was thinking "We should merge all the communities together."
k
Definitely an option! But only one of the options.
k
Community structure is actually one of the questions that is rarely addressed explicitly. Maybe loosely coupled smaller communities are more effective. Maybe not. Also: how is community structured related to communication tools? All we have is chat-type interaction. I suspect most of us would agree that this is not ideal, but then we don't have a clear idea of how to do better.
🤔 1
j
Code is dead
n
And according to Alan Kay, so is data. (Not to say I believe it)
👀 1
k
Wow, that thread is fantastic. Alan Kay and Rich Hickey duking it out 🍿
🍰 2
You can of course instead send me a program that (better?) explains yourself, but I don't trust you enough to run it :)
💥
😂 1
n
(I wasn't very impressed with Alan Kay’s responses though. He didn't provide direct answers to Rich’s questions. He was being excessively vague 🤷‍♀️.)
💯 4
k
An interesting exchange indeed, which I read a while ago. Both sides have good arguments, which are slightly obscured by the very different attitudes of their proponents (Alan Kay as a visionary, Rich Hickey as a pragmatist). Overall I am more on the "data" side, mostly because I consider the rule of least power (https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html) very important.
💯 2
i
The one thing we can all agree on, though, is that code is definitely a bad idea.
😂 3
💯 4
k
Evil. Maybe a necessary evil to be minimized rather than eradicated. Though I wonder now if @Jimmy Miller meant this, or 'dead' in the sense of dead fish.
j
It was a reference to Nietzsche's parable of the madman. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/nietzsche-madman.asp
You know, I actually quite like code. Now, I also love seeing alternatives. But I think code is under-appreciated. (Not unpopular, just under-appreciated). Code is an expressive medium in a very unique way. Of course it expresses computation things, but that’s all we focus on. Code gives you so much bandwidth for choosing your own style. I can be in an unfamiliar codebase and immediately recognize particular engineers’ code. That recognition is not white space, or particular names but has more to do with structure. There is something about the code that embodies that persons personality. Being able to accomplish a task and use that moment as a way to express myself differently is fantastic. I can play with code in a way I find difficult in language. I can explore ways of approaching a problem that I may not fully even understand myself, but can make work, reflect on, and come to understand. There is also a freedom of expression by its self contained nature. When writing natural language there is an expectation of conveying some particular idea. Even if this is just note taking for yourself, if someone lacks context about the topic you are talking about, there is nothing in the text to help them. Code is self-contained in that you can write code completely incomprehensible and yet people can just examine the code and figure it out. The ambiguity isn’t there and so you are free to just write. The code does what it does and that is discoverable. Code also communicates indirectly peoples values and beliefs. Rather than paying attention to the semantics of code, I find it more interesting to look at the pragmatic (in the Gricean Maxim’s sense). This is where ambiguity comes back in. What does this code being expressed in this way tell me about the beliefs of the people who wrote it? What does these different styles tell me about the struggles on the team? These are all things code can help you understand. Further making programming languages is an incredibly fun and creative act. What linguistically do you want to convey and how? What unintended consequences does your language have? How can you use/abuse certain language features to do unintended things? There are so many more things I’d love to say in praise of code. Without I’m not sure I’d be who I am. But that is of course not to say that no other medium is better for expressing computation. I guess I’m pretty fond of code, but since I know not everyone shares that fondness, I want them to find what I have found in code in another medium. A new means of expression that takes advantage of what computers have to offer.
🖋️ 1
❤️ 4
d
Beautiful gloss. Lightning and thunder require time.
c
message has been deleted
😂 2
✔️ 2
m
I think code should be the first to go, according to the dictionary: • a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy • a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way
💯 2
google image search for "coding"
k
I see the term "coding" as part of the "wizard culture" of early computing. That was perhaps a useful aspect to get people on board in the early days, when the real-life use cases were rare. But when you do care about the real world, and in particular about generating trust in technology, wizard culture is an obstacle.
👆 2
s
System Sketching? System Designing?
c
Code is awesome – who amongst us (I'm genuinely curious) was not activated by the idea that "this computer is customizable, and it's via speaking a special language, that language is code – I want to read some, I want to try to write some" What's the alternative? Tweaking settings and preferences? Drawing pictures? Doing some Minority Report mime show? Having a chit chat? I can reprogram my DVR that way, but that in no way feels like how I feel when I sit down with my computer. HyperCard threw the entire kitchen sink of UI facilities within a button click or two of the user, and you still couldn't make more than a basic carousel without ultimately getting in the script... have some variables, some loops, maybe clean it up into functions, now this button can do something... Yes code is a 2nd language to learn – there will be some indirection when speaking in electricity – but I wonder if it's actually one of the easiest 2nd languages to learn, because typically there just aren't that many semantic primitives. What FoC project doesn't invent a new language, via symbology or actual code? Even if it was smoke signals, it'd still be code. So anyway: code.
k
The question is not what we here use for automation. The question that brings me here is what it would take to get broader participation in automation. I care about programming coverage in my society the way I care about vaccine coverage. Is 'code' the right framing to get more people automating their computers?
c
The messaging for the general public will be in terms of whatever new paradigms are located, here or elsewhere Something for the general public may be the ultimate mission, but the direct mission here, for this community, is speaking to those who are activated to work on the larger mission, I'd say? (And hell, my mission certainly isn't necessarily something for the broad public – they're already onboard – we now have more people using computers than driving cars – including personalizing those computers – and my presumption is that personalization and automation will increase naturally over time, probably via pretty uninteresting methods – What I'm really here for is something cool, whether that brings in another % of non-computer users or not, or bumps the % of normie user automation or not) Regardless, I can see how "code" feels like a more limiting frame than a freeing frame – but is this already a more limited frame community? And is the frame of "code" energizing or de-energizing? Worth a survey, probably
👍🏽 1
a
Framing for the general public is a bit of an orthogonal problem to framing for people we want to join our community. I'm skeptical that there can ever be a singular framing for the general public; that's the kind of thing we might discuss here, in a group for people creating the things we might then try to convince the public is useful... The main problem I see is that we don't agree on our goals except in the very broadest terms of making programming better, somehow. Any name more specific than that is going to fit awkwardly at best. BTW, here's another vote against incorporating people's names. Having heroes is almost always a mistake, let's not institutionalize them in a spot that's hard to change. Rather keep the same name.
👍 1
c
"our goals" is probably a good thing to not have – we should have factions, we should have discussions past each other, that's the sign of a real school (in ancient greek terms) – multiple competing perspectives, entirely different sets of concerns, tons of things to share that mostly have no value for any of us individually, super high churn in level of interest – we need even more variance in mission, I'd say
💯 6
"code" being just one faction 😄 I spose
k
Exactly. Like @Chris Knott, I'm much more comfortable saying what it isn't than what it is. It isn't just code.
amiga tick 1
a
The biggest common thread I see is about enabling creation of software. "Future of creating software" is a mouthful, but possibly angled close to the right direction, though "software" is arguably still too narrow... Was there something we didn't like with "Future of Computing?"
k
No, it (_edit_: 'computing') has come up several times in this thread with minor variations and no major red flags. The major negatives against it are internationalization (doesn't translate well to French and perhaps other languages, but we could always use other translations in other languages) and name collision (convivial computing salon). My perception is that it's a leading candidate, but it's unclear so far if it's different enough to be worth a name change.
j
If you look at the OP. One of Ivan's dislikes of the name is the pretensions of "the future". So any name with that in it would have the same problem. We can always do the academic thing and make it plural. But I think what is desired is a name that captures the diversity and the contingency of what computing is and what computing could be.
k
Ah, yes. I was focusing on the 'computation'. In my (biased) reading of this thread, the current frontrunner is Convivial computing/computation.
c
the word convivial just makes me want to take a nap, it's such a sunny day lazy word (also the writings around it are all soporific)
🤣 3
😉 1
too bad "Possibilities" is a long word, because the feeling is perfect, and also it would let us do PoC (P of Computing)
o
I certainly identify more with “computing” than “programming” as a research area, and I think it’s a more honest reflection of this communities interests. This includes programming, but also broader systems, software, interfaces, etc. and it doesn’t constrain the theory toolset to those common in programming research. But as Jimmy pointed out, the “future of” may be the real issue. I like the direction Jimmy and Christopher pointed towards, of pluralism, variety and possibility. I’m not too mad at pluralising the name, something like “Futures of Computing” at least makes sense to me, though it sounds a little off. I’ll also chuck into the mix the notion of alternatives (to the future as is, or to computing as is), but not as a name suggestion.
👍 1
It’s hard to capture the nuance 😕 Like, for me, it feels that computing has suffered from a “slow cancellation of the future” with deflating expectations, increasing homogeneity, and consolidation of power. So one important role of a community like this is demonstrating that a different computing future is possible to imagine, let alone _achieve_… But that’s hardly something that works as a title ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
💯 3
j
Counterfactuals of Computation. Sounds like a textbook. Alt Comp is short. Or alt-c and then you can have ç as the logo. Not quite as cool as Alt-j
👍 2
😂 1
o
^ I like this a lot in spirit, but isn’t counterfactual quite close to saying “not true”?
j
Counterfactuals are propositions about possibilities. What if smalltalk had become popular and not java? What if everyone could "program" a computer? Counterfactuals are connected to modal logic and also the concept of possible worlds. Really great area of philosophy. Also has connections to distributed computation.
⭐ 1
💡 1
o
I wish I could think of a short word for “the plurality of alternate/possible futures (of computing) which could be better, that you may not have known were possible, and which we can work towards together, today” or something to that effect…
@Jimmy Miller I wonder what you think of as the distinction between “computing” and “computation”? I’d interpret computation in most circumstances to be a subset of computing, which I parse as a more all-encompassing and inter-disciplinary field.
j
Obviously we would need a German word. :) That does remind me though, I’ve always loved Die Brücke (The Bridge). Probably not a mass appeal name though. Like Salon, it an art reference. Die Brücke was a german expressionist group. They got their name from a Nietzsche quote about being The Bridge to future rather than the future itself. Definitely the role I feel this group wants to play, to be The Bridge.
❤️ 2
v
its Friday afternoon and I’m thinking - gewurztraminer
d
Perhaps something along the lines of dreams / imagination? "Dreaming in Computer" or "Computational Imagineering"? Just throwing it out there.
👀 1
s
I still like Adventures in Computing. Our maybe misadventures?
a
I enjoy the word 
photography
as an inspiration or thinking point. The etymology is merely "light" + "representing" / "drawing", whether people know that or not isn't very important in the evolution of its practice or embodiment in our creative culture. I used to have to be a chemist, a machinist, a carpenter, and an adventurer to participate in "photography", it was quite intimidating and only a small handful of specialists were doing it on a daily basis. The casual citizen, if they were rich or famous, would commission the magical, mysterious creation and take home a giant plate, that only their family might ever see. Cut to, "if I push this button my face can look like a unicorn with sparkles and all my million followers are about to see this jam in 30 seconds." But it's still called "photography" and I'm still just "playing with light".
➕ 1
k
Starting from "photography"... how about "view"? "Views of computing"?
n
“Views” sounds too much like “opinions”, and I think the computing community has an oversupply of those 🫣.
k
OK, so maybe "perspectives"?
c
I think I like perspectives of computing
n
That's a bit better, but it’s too passive IMO. Sounds like a community centred around talking, rather than creating!
c
Viable perspectives on computing?
k
"New perspectives on computing?" "Executable perspectives on computing?"
c
I think my vote would be for something more like "Rebuilding Computing"/"Rethinking Computing"/"Remaking Computers". The "Re-" reflects the backwards-looking, reflective nature, of a lot of the research, but the "building"/"making" suggests its an active community of makers, where kudos is earned in part by what you actually build. It's fairly inclusive in that it doesn't sound academic/pretentious. Kind of like; "Computers left you behind first time around? Get in loser, we're remaking it".
💯 4
❤️ 2
🦄 2
n
I really like the vibe of those phrases!
👍 1
a
"One billion tinkerers"
c
"One billion tinkerers"
Yes, that's the other genre of catchphrase I like; "the other 99%", "programming for the rest" etc. It doesn't really reflect a lot of the actual projects here at the moment though, which are still pitching to existing programmers but just doing it better
m
@Konrad Hinsen Viewpoints? 😉
😄 3
s
“The Confused Computerists Collective” “Dis Oriented Programming”
k
Shalabh, I loved your first suggestion up top but they've been going downhill ever since 😄
😂 1
s
These don’t actually mean anything vision-wise. I just think any label works well as a name.
👍🏽 1
I’m thinking about “Ink & Switch” for instance. It’s just a label, not trying to be clever but is clearly a brand at this point. Anyone know what the meaning behind that is?
j
@Chris Knott I had a similar suggestion with the Re earlier. You could always stylize it to make the multiple meanings apparent. Code Re:Thought.
k
I see it! https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/CEXED56UR/p1633392212155800?thread_ts=1632872466.023400&cid=CEXED56UR. I like "Code Rethought". One reason "tools for thought" works so well is the lack of suffixes like "-tion" or "-ing". Packs a punch. If we want a 're' it should probably be the only prefix/suffix.
@Ivan Reese I did a pass through this thread and pulled out the serious (I have no sense of humor) candidates that seemed to have some support: • Convivial Computing/Computation • Habitable Computing Society • Humane Computing • Adventures in Computing • Code Rethought • Rebuilding Computing / Rethinking Computing / Remaking Computers • Systems Thinking • Convivial Tools • Cozy Computing • Computing Literacy • Engelbart Society • Raskin Society • BLEIKAN Society (Bush Licklider Engelbart Illich Kay Alexander Nardi) One concrete question for me at this point is: which of these names, if any, would you be comfortable reaching out to potential podcast guests with? That seems like a reasonable criterion for disqualification. Go over the past podcast guests and see how many of them "wouldn't fit."
c
Reboot Computers
❤️ 2
a
Rebooting Computing has a nice ring. :D
❤️ 2
☝️ 1
💯 2
a
The Computing Commons
i
@Kartik Agaram Thanks for doing that. All of the names are lovely, but also, they all have meanings / qualities about them for which they could be disqualified as ill-fitting. So here, I'll pick two that seem furthest from the mark in my opinion (which should count for very little). • Code Rethought — I don't "code" as the point of reference. That precludes, for instance, Jennifer Jacobs' work, which is about dynamism and not at all about "coding". • [Engelbart/Raskin/BLEIKAN] Society — I don't like organizing around the ideas/work of a person or specific people. Feels like a cult of personality.
❤️ 1
j
Not to be a partisan. But that's the point of "Code Rethought". Like should we even have code? Maybe we took a wrong turn? Should we rethink this whole thing? I just wanted to smuggle in the word, because we are trying to attract programmers as one core part of our audience.
i
That's still framing things in terms of the creation of software, rather than the broader (and more interesting) notion which is what even is a computer and what will we do with it?
@Andrew F’s "Rebooting Computing" absolutely rips. It's silly and fun to say. It's open-ended. The sort of guests I'd feel embarrassed to invite to a podcast with a name like that are the strait-laced self-serious corporate shills that I wouldn't invite anyway. It feels sort of.. early PC-era, like "The Computer Show" or "BYTE Magazine".
❤️ 4
🎉 2
d
Lol I’m sold. In addition to what you said, I was trying to figure out how to put this, but one of the things I do like about ‘FoC’ is that it implicitly evokes the history of computing. This manages to do one better, with the added sense of ‘revisiting initial conditions & how we got from there to here’.
i
Welp — it's already taken by a similar group with similar goals: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_Rebooting_Computing
😔 1
s
The Humane [Computing] slants also seem to be “taken”: • https://hu.ma.ne/ • https://www.humanetech.com/
d
Booooo. Rebootering Computering
💯 1
s
I love rebooting computing too. Bummer it's taken.
s
Restarting Computing? 🤔 Restarting Computers? (more punn-y)
d
lowkey gotta hand it to the IEEE for that one
c
Reboot Computers – the "booting pooting" rhyme takes some of the vigor out of the basic idea anyway
s
The ing is what adds the zing imo.
➕ 1
s
Recomputing
i
@Chris G — The rhyme is what makes it fun and gives it character.
c
Definitely friendly – would have been nice to use
s
Computer Rebooter
m
ReComputing 👀
c
Computer Science Theater 3000
s
Don't compute, reboot.
k
How much does that name conflict matter? I kinda like the name too much to give up on it just yet.
☝🏽 1
❤️ 1
j
Seems like too big of a group to name conflict with. Some random podcast would be one thing. This is ieee and they are actively using it and dominate the Google results.
s
Yeah I was just looking at them and they seem to active with a bunch of stuff under that brand.
i
There's a wikipedia page for it. We don't even have a wikipedia page.
d
I have the same feeling sadly
c
Imagine Computers
(/ Imagining Computing 😄)
d
Repunking Computer Imaginaries 🫥
s
Disrooting Computing Rerouting Computing Uprooting Computing Highfalutin Computin’ Reconstituting Computing Sorry, I found rhymezone.com. But I will now stop. 🙊
😄 1
c
Let's be honest, all we're about is highfalutin computin
🥂 1
rootin tootin computin
🤠 2
k
https://futureofcoding.slack.com/archives/CEXED56UR/p1652723948312039?thread_ts=1632872466.023400&cid=CEXED56UR Bah, evil organizations once again getting in the way of noble people. Google/IEEE/Wikipedia is for squares; you need to know someone to get in on this scene.
c
Just think how many more community members we'd get if IEEE delivered a cease & desist
💡 2
k
On the one hand, legal proceedings. On the other hand, having to put up with more funny names from you lot. I know which hand I fear more.
😄 1
s
"Rebootin Computin" No name conflict here.
🤠 2
k
👎🏽 Rhymes with Putin
😂 1
s
Rootin’ Tootin’ Computin’
🤣 1
c
Then IEEE will come back with Rootinest Tootinest Computin
n
Bootin Putin
I would like to express my strong support for the title "Code Rethought" (or "Code Rethunk", which gives us a unique stylization also refers to something sneaky 🤫). I agree with Jimmy that such a title shouldn't exclude people who are interested in computational environments that don't feature explicit "code", because the title can be interpreted in two ways: 1. Perhaps we should rethink our existing programming languages and tools. 2. Perhaps we should rethink the role of code in defining interactive systems. Perhaps we don't need code at all.
🤔 1
a
The Uncoders' Underbelly
50 Views
Open in Slack
PreviousNext
Powered by