

Ted Nelson's Computer Paradigm Expressed as One-Liners (1999) - maxwell
http://hyperland.com/TedCompOneLiners

======
networked
Ted Nelson is very quotable and I would highly recommend reading at least the
freely available excerpt [1] from his seminal 1974 book _Computer Lib / Dream
Machines_ to anyone who frequents HN. For those who don't know, his most
famous invention is the term "hypertext" and he also appears to have invented,
though is lest often acknowledged for, the history stack with its accompanying
"back" button in Web browsers.

Nelson's writings have a different sensibility from the mainstream of both his
fellow computing pioneers of the 1970s and the hackers of today. An example of
his thinking from before even UNIX was a household name is that Nelson decried
hierarchy as a form of organization for data (e.g., in a computer's file
system), instead emphasizing association [2], which he thought closer to how
humans actually organize knowledge. He also argued that instead of dialogue-
based computer instruction that was taking off at the time the best method to
use a computer for learning would be to "motivate the user and let him loose
in a wonderful place", that place being a hypertext knowledge base (see [1],
p. 313).

It is disappointing that in spite of Nelson's books being incredibly
influential (to the point where they were reprinted by Microsoft Press because
of the company's fondness for the author) most of his ideas never saw a
complete implementation in a popular product. I'd love to read a doctoral
thesis/book on the history of Project Xanadu -- a hypertext Web project
started in 1960 that was supposed to have content transclusion and
microtransactions (!) -- with an in-depth analysis of the factors that led it
to where it is now (i.e., still unfinished today). (Gary Wolf's article "The
Curse of Xanadu" [3] is the closest we have to that but it has multiple
problems, to the point where Nelson has published a refutation [4].)

Today Ted Nelson's background in art (the man has, among other things, a claim
to writing the world's first rock musical [5]) and fondness for pure
performance (which is what I believe his recent video "I Think I Know Who
Satoshi Is" [6] to be) may be a factor that limits the appeal of his message
to most "techies" (his term), preventing them from more deeply investigating
his message.

[1] <http://www.newmediareader.com/book_samples/nmr-21-nelson.pdf>

[2] Nelson's alternative to the file hierarchy was associative "metadata" a-la
the MEMEX (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEMEX#Associative_trails>). With
WinFS canned I'm still waiting for someone to implement something even close
to that.

[3] <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/3.06/xanadu.html>

[4] <http://xanadu.com.au/ararat>

[5] [http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/dutton/2007/12/10/the-first-
rock-...](http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/dutton/2007/12/10/the-first-rock-musical-
remembered-by-ted-nelson/)

[6] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emDJTGTrEm0>

~~~
bachback
I very much agree. I find it amazing that he does not get more credit. What is
very unfortunate is that Ted never took the time to learn more about
programming languages. For example file systems are there for a reason and
only now, with all the computing power, can we partly realize alternative
structures.

~~~
bachback
P.S.: TN is one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. Perhaps
not top10, but definitely top50, after Einstein, Freud, Chomsky, etc. He
talked about personal computing before personal computers. He invented (i.e.
thought of) Hypertext, before people did have access to computers. Building
things is important, no doubt. But thinking about them is also important. Note
the three thinkers I mentioned also never built anything. They wrote
books/articles. For instance Nelson largely influenced IBM in building the PC.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kasu0BhRFGo>. He also influenced Steve Jobs, I
believe quite heavily. At least Woz mentions the influence of Nelson and I
think many ideas of Jobs actually came from Nelson in some sense.

~~~
reeses
In re hypertext, there is precedent in the widely published works of Vannevar
Bush.

Nelson spent a lot of time refining many ideas that were not really viable
before the availability of computers. Given the timeframe (growing up under
the shadow of the Military Industrial Complex and then maturing during the
Cold War/proxy wars) he hit a very ripe time for populist activists.

I do think Nelson is one of the most influential thinkers regarding
information science, but not as much as he desperately reminds people that he
was. I also do not think his limitation is his inability to program computers,
as he had a number of well-funded people helping at different times.

I suspect that, if you were to sit down and force rank the 50 most important
thinkers of the 20th century, you'd have to exclude Nelson. Had he realized
his ideas in a timely fashion, or inspired anyone to realize and exceed his
visions, then his place would be secured.

However, I think much of what he created, other than the specifics of a great
potential implementation, would be classified as simultaneous invention.
Semantic networks existed before hypertext and it's a pretty nominal step from
there to the basics of hypermedia. The Mother of All Demos is probably the
best example of his contemporaries realizing their ideas.

What he does have is charisma and an ability to communicate his ideas. He gets
people fired up about his dreams of a better world, and yet it has not come to
pass. No one has been inspired enough to implement Xanadu. It's appropriately
named. It's an interrupted dream that is incomplete.

------
evincarofautumn
I found this a good takeaway:

> What people call an “intuitive interface” is generally one which becomes
> obvious as soon as it is demonstrated. But before the demo there was no
> intuition of what it would be like. Therefore the real first sense of
> “intuitive” is _retroactively obvious_.

Programming languages often tout their “intuitive” this or that—syntax,
semantics, whatever. It’s all crap written by a well-meaning designer who’s
gotten so deep in their design that they can’t see how “obvious to me” does
not mean “obvious to any equally intelligent person”.

Consider the kinds of interfaces which actually _are_ intuitive, say, well-
designed radio or temperature controls in a car. They afford experimentation,
provide instant feedback, and need little to no labelling.

That’s how I think programming ought to be, at least at a beginner level. A
text-based programming language is a great tool for power users, but it’s
totally unapproachable for a new user because they don’t know the shibboleth.
A blank slate is not friendly; in the _rare_ event that the fledgling has a
specific problem in mind already (“I want to make Mario!”) then they almost
certainly don’t know even the most general form of what their solution would
look like. Your beautiful, informative, 400-page manual does not make your
language intuitive, just usable.

The end goal of my current language project—which is textual—is to serve as a
basis for that kind of interface. If the system is designed from the beginning
to support experimentation and play, and there is a 1:1 mapping to the “real
thing” to avoid the disparity of “beginner mode” and “advanced mode”, then I
think that would open up programming to a lot of people.

Essentially the opposite of COBOL: don’t try to make a system “easy for non-
programmers”. Try to make a system that helps people become programmers so
that they can realise their visions of games, applications, art pieces, and
beyond.

------
btilly
The saying, _the perfect is the enemy of the good_ sums up a lot of Ted
Nelson's life.

He has a lot of ideas. They inspire people. He's been working on them for
ages. (Xanadu was started in 1960.) But he never is satisfied, he's always
changing it, he never releases (OK, an incomplete form of Xanadu was released
in 1998...), and the key parts that people care about have been released
elsewhere in a form that he doesn't like.

~~~
hga
A bit worse than that; from a friend who looked at it:

They didn't do the basic end to end work, so creating a client to display a
Xanadu document was almost impossibly onerous. You had to grok and use around
6 different things, and, well, however nice the backend might be, it just
wasn't practical.

Also an example of the perils of stealth mode, I found the above believable
simply because they'd been in stealth mode _for decades_.

------
ceautery
"Oh, SURE the Macintosh interface is Intuitive! I've always thought deep in my
heart that command-z should undo things." -- Margy Levine

Genius.

------
hardwaresofton
Feels like this article could be summed up with "everything you know about
computers is wrong and poorly designed"

~~~
reeses
That's just about right, though.

The Unix model is a mess, the WOSA is a mess, personal computing hardware is a
stack of hacks, programming environments are a poorly integrated mess,
software 'engineering' is still back in the age of siege engineering rather
than modern engineering discipline, and emacs still takes ages to boot.

Computers are marvelous productivity and life-enhancement tools, but following
the easy path has led to stagnation in the mainstream.

~~~
hardwaresofton
upvoted for "emacs still takes ages to boot" -- hit me right where it counts.

I wonder though, is reckless advancement better than taking time to do it
right? A lot of people are finding success with the fail-and-iterate model --
isn't that essentially what we've identified as a problem now?

~~~
reeses
Incremental improvements are improvements, but one runs the risk of reaching a
local maximum. As we see a significant change in the landscape (say,
networking, SMP, or GPGPU, which haven't been prevalent since companies wrote
their own minimal operating systems when receiving a computer), we build on
what we have rather than breaking it down and factoring new capabilities into
our way of thinking. We know it's a good idea to do so, but the advancements
tend to be limited to academic or research oriented projects rather than
widespread commercial pursuits.

There's a good reason for this, which is backwards compatibility, in terms of
concepts, education, maintaining a skilled workforce, and retaining the value
of prior investments in hardware and software.

------
ccera
TL;DR: Grumpy, bitter man is grumpy and bitter.

I suppose Nelson deserves _some_ credit for being a visionary, but there are
two definitions for visionary in the dictionary: (1) A person with unusual
powers of foresight; (2) A person given to fanciful speculations and
enthusiasms with little regard for what is actually possible.

Nelson is obviously much more the second than the first.

He's no more visionary than at least a thousand other people who ACTUALLY DID
STUFF.

Some really smart individuals, like Nelson, get lost in their own private
jungles. Here's an example of what I mean. Nelson inserted a note in this
document in 2012 wherein he points to the rise of XPointer and XPath as
validating something he said back in 1999. XPointer and XPath?! XPointer and
XPath have had barely any impact on _anything_ that's happened in computing
since 1999.

Nelson is apparently in such a deep fog of irrelevance that he somehow
perceives XPointer and XPath as being important in some way? It's bizarre. I
think it illustrates why he never managed to accomplish anything or make any
actual contributions beyond his "visionary" grenade-throwing.

~~~
bachback
Yes! You're almost half right! But more seriously TN is one of the most
important thinkers of the 20th century. see my note above.

~~~
ccera
I am _thoroughly_ familiar with Nelson. I've read probably a majority of
everything he's ever written. He's a smart man and a visionary. As I stated.

Doesn't change the fact that he hasn't been very successful at turning his
ideas into anything actually useful to people, and doesn't change the fact
that he shits all over the amazing accomplishments of thousands of other
people who _have_.

~~~
bachback
I'm talking about his impact on history, not necessarily the validity of his
arguments in the year 2013. Almost all work in history morphs into something
else. He influenced others who have build the computer industry a great deal
as far as I can tell. For example if one wonders where Steve Jobs got so many
great ideas in the early years it's probably in part due to Nelson, for
example understanding computing as an expressive medium, as a replacement for
paper. Clearly the work of Berners-Lee is directly influenced by Nelson.
Unlike Gutenberg he didn't actually build the printing press. But he should be
mentioned as a major contributor to the modern computer world. I very much
doubt that "thousands of other people" can claim anywhere such things.
According to wikipedia: "The crucial underlying concept of hypertext
originated with older projects from the 1960s, such as the Hypertext Editing
System (HES) at Brown University, Ted Nelson's Project Xanadu, and Douglas
Engelbart's oN-Line System (NLS)." So there are perhaps 5 or 10 people who are
the first level input nodes for the web. Not "thousands". By this line of
reasoning Bill Gates contributed more to the web, because the Internet
Explorer was widely adopted.

