

The Principals of 'Pataphysical Programming - senki
http://www.illposed.com/philosophy/pataprogramming.html

======
mattdw
The article doesn't get very concrete, and given the origins of "'pataphysics"
as parody I'm not sure how seriously to take this.

On the other hand, treating software systems as realities in their own right –
with only incidental mappings back to our reality – is a fascinating idea.
(Obviously an entirely self-contained reality is no good; I/O are pretty
fundamental.) I guess the question is, what happens when we stop requiring
software _model_ things, and instead let it _be_ things?

~~~
skermes
Based on the prose examples the article gives (the chess/lunch story and the
crucifixion/bike race story), it looks like a truly 'pataphysical system
wouldn't need IO at all. Instead, you'd have a program of some sort, that was
simultaneously doing 'pataphysical computation and mundane computation. In the
story of Jesus and the bike race, the narrative never shifts between the story
of racing up the hill and the story of Jesus being killed on a cross, the
story is both at the same time throughout. By analogy, I suspect the article
would like us to consider what kind of system we'd need to construct in order
to, I suppose, be a story about a bike race (or something else equally removed
from programmer's usual domain) _and_ an application to serve web pages at the
same time.

Of course, given 'pataphysic's status as "the science of imaginary solutions"
I won't be holding my breath for a 'pataprogrammatical Rails-killer anytime
soon, but it's a fun idea.

~~~
mattdw
I did have the thought that if OO is clearly metaphorical, it could be argued
that all abstractions within the program are 'pataphysical. That is, we can
say "an agent sends a message to another agent" or "the function passes
control to the current continuation", and we're actually describing concrete
reality in program-land, rather than metaphors for real-world objects.

In that sense, 'pataphysical programming might be more common than we realize.

------
iamwil
This doesn't make any sense to me. Either there's some assumption about self I
don't get, or they're just making shit up. Cuz after reading that, I'm. No
closer to reproducing it.

------
j_baker
Somewhat off-topic: What does the Chief Philosopher of a software company do?
And how do I get that job?

~~~
tjarratt
If you start your own company, you can give yourself any title you like.

edit: That doesn't mean people will refer to you as such, or respect you, but
that's a different issue altogether.

On topic, a Chief Philosopher probably would serve a role between product
manager and evangelist.

------
scott_s
I'm running into Poe's Law here: <http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law>

------
gwern
The footnote is broken; you can find a copy at
[http://web.archive.org/web/20080311215730/http://www.pataphy...](http://web.archive.org/web/20080311215730/http://www.pataphysics-
lab.com/sarcophaga/daysures/Jarry,+Alfred+-+The+Crucifixion+Considered+as+an+Uphill+Bicycle+Race.html)

------
swombat
Principles.

~~~
senki
Principal principles.

<http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/principal.html>

------
sz
I think it's a joke.

