> If a system is to serve the creative spirit, it must be entirely comprehensible to a single individual.
Not true at all. For example, artists using Photoshop are typically not programmers and don’t understand the system at all. That doesn’t stop them from creating world class art. A great creative system hides all the complexity from the artist and frees them to express themselves in a way that is natural to them.
Also, understanding the complete system, from software to hardware etc. is pretty much impossible for an individual. So your “low level understanding” of a system will always be a simplified model of what is really going on.
I have seen this kind of thinking before and IMHO it leads you down the wrong track. Abstractions are there for a reason.
Smalltalk is a good example of this. Yes it allows you to manipulate lower levels of the stack (compared with most languages). But that hasn’t resulted in creative outcomes demonstrating the value of being able to do this. Smalltalk failed in the programming language market place.
In some talks, Alan Kay mentioned something like the user understanding a simplified model in his head. I believe he mentioned the user should be able to understand a modern car through the mental model of a Ford model T.
Edit: Alan Kay sometimes also mentions "slogan land", where you state things too black and white, so that management types understand the essence. Perhaps that applies to these rules too.
I am pretty sure very few people driving cars understand how a Ford T works. Can they explain how a combustion engine works? Can they even explain the run cycle of a single cylinder? I doubt it. The mental model people use for driving cars is extremely simple compared with how a Ford T model actually works.
Not true at all. For example, artists using Photoshop are typically not programmers and don’t understand the system at all. That doesn’t stop them from creating world class art. A great creative system hides all the complexity from the artist and frees them to express themselves in a way that is natural to them.
Also, understanding the complete system, from software to hardware etc. is pretty much impossible for an individual. So your “low level understanding” of a system will always be a simplified model of what is really going on.
I have seen this kind of thinking before and IMHO it leads you down the wrong track. Abstractions are there for a reason.
Smalltalk is a good example of this. Yes it allows you to manipulate lower levels of the stack (compared with most languages). But that hasn’t resulted in creative outcomes demonstrating the value of being able to do this. Smalltalk failed in the programming language market place.