… they went so fast that at last they seemed to skim through the air, hardly touching the ground with their feet, till suddenly, just as Alice was getting quite exhausted, they stopped, and she found herself sitting on the ground, breathless and giddy.
The Queen propped her up against a tree and said kindly,You may rest a little, now.
Alice looked round her in great surprise.Why, I do believe we've been here under this tree the whole time! Everything's just as it was!
Of course it is,said the Queen.What would you have it?
Well, in our country,said Alice, still panting a little,you'd generally get to somewhere else – if you ran very fast for a long time as we've been doing.
A slow sort of country!said the Queen.Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!
I've had the good fortune to work for some software houses that are
systematic about verifying, recording and cataloguing bugs – all of which
makes it easier to find and fix them. Such software companies also recognise
the need to test thoroughly and treat changes in
version of the operating system our customer uses or
their text is in some foreign script) as development, trying not to impinge
unduly on background maintenance effort which will have to mop up anything the
development team misses. So, where it comes to maintaining software, I've had
it about as good as it gets.
Even under optimal circumstances, maintaining software is just like The Queen describes it.
The world tried really hard to teach me that
new stuff is A Good
Thing. I earn my living maintaining large bodies of software: at least most of
which wasn't written by me and much wasn't
new when it was written. If
that seems like a drop from my younger ambition to chase the riddles left by
Einstein's legacy, I have a deep suspicion that
new isn't the guide I
should have followed if I'd stayed on it: I should attend first to a full
understanding of what is supposedly
known in the early stages of that
path, directing my search initially within that domain, guided by my intuitions
of where to go; my suspicion is that
most of the answer has been lying in
our hands, un-noticed (for a century or so) because it is no
new yet takes much understanding, so that whatever else there may
the answer is unseen until this
old cranny is properly
explored. (The hunt for
the right cranny looks more like bug-hunting,
interspersed with occasional forrays of fixing, than like development –
most of the effort is devoted to groking what's already there, however good or
bad it may be.)
I digress, I use convoluted sentences and, even when I don't, I'm not famed
for my ability to say things clearly or tersely. It works better if I get
feed-back, best if the feed-back is information-rich. I have a steadily growing
body of web pages, devoting less time to
rationalisation and sub-editing
(I shall not pretend to warrant the title
Editor – that post is
vacant, where I merely fill several others imperfectly) than to
new stuff. Meanwhile, the internet fills up with …
material is the best word I can find for it: some rich in information for one
audience, useless to all others; some useful but dull to most audiences; and the
whole panoply beyond, including the tiny corners on which most
focus attention. Finding anything gets harder. In principle, what gets found
might be expected to improve: but only in so far as the
better finds are
recognisable as such to the search engines.
Now, I'm more usually looking for somewhere to find information; but even if
I were writing software to
search the internet, I'd
which are well-organised, straightforward and information-rich – even when
answering a query in which two competing sites provide
information (in so far as my software knows how to assess that) as regards
the user's query, I want the software to give the one which
simply. As with Occam, one has to make one's own judgements as to what one
simpler or, indeed, to answer
how much does this say ?
– but reasonable folk may hope to agree enough of the time to make it
possible to write software which
homes in on what folk want.
So, I guess I should stop rambling and tidy up my site, migrating it all
to ISO HTML in the
process. However, I notice that there's a lot of that to be done and I'm
definitely not going to be doing it when I've got my head full
new stuff that I want to write down – though I try to tie it in
with what's already present when I can. It will be some time before this site
is anywhere near tidy, especially if I keep adding to the mess by writing new
stuff. So finally, in Autumn 1999, I realised I should have a page explaining
how to cope with the mess – which is clearly here for the foreseeable
All the kool kids moved to social media, the slightly older ones are using
content management systems and blogging software; HTML is kinda '90s, so why am
I still using it ? And why on a web-server, hosted by some friends of
mine, as (mostly) static HTML pages, rather than one of the
corporate behemoths that'll
drive traffic to my writings and might even
pay me money for hosting it, if I let them pester my readers with advertising
(and tune my content to grab attention) ?
OK, so I probably mostly answered some of that second question by how I phrased it, but its answer overlaps with one part of an answer to the first: I get to control it – thanks to my friends' kindness in letting me use their server and trusting me to do my own thing for managing the content – and that means the authoritative version of all the content is actually present on a computer I control (as well as the one my friends let me publish it on), which means it'll still be there after some cororate behemoth goes bankrupt or gets taken over by some morally bankrupt spoiled brat of a gazillionaire who decides he doesn't want my sort of content on his latest play-thing's servers. I don't suffer from the delusion that there are – or even should be – large numbers of folk particularly interested in my writings, nor am I inclined to try to trick those for whom it's all irrelevant into visiting it, just to give some advertiser a more precisely tuned audience on whom to inflict their attempts at interfering with decision-making. A lot of the rest of the answer to both questions is quite well put by Jack Rusher in his answer to the corresponding question about why he does his site his own way.
As for the use of raw HTML, rather than a
what you see is all you've
got user-interface for
authoring content, it's what I started out
doing in '94, so it had become (through simple practice and habit) easy for me
to do by the time there were tools accessible to those who care more about
seeing the results as they type; and, in any case, I care more about how that
result is achieved and what it takes to achieve it. If the result looks
somewhat retro-'90s, that's in large part because what I care about is the ideas
and their expression, more than the visual presentation; and, indeed, I prefer
to let the reader control the presentation, to fit how they prefer to
read, rather than devoting time to controlling the fonts and colour schemes in
use, much less the size and shape of the space into which the text (and
occasional picture) gets rendered. Sadly so many web-sites insist on
controlling that stuff that modern browsers only offer rather limited options to
the user for how they can control how they read.
And most of what I care to communicate is tolerably well communicated in text, with a little help from the occasional supporting image, so why use anything more complicated ? Especially as I'm using a version-control system that's better at handling plain text than anything else; and I can write diagrams as plain text, SVG, that the browser will turn into images.
It will be easier to make sense of my site for the visitor who bears in mind
my purposes in having the site. In particular, my primary purpose is
simply to record some of what I know in a more orderly memory (that of my
computer) than the one inside my head. Remembering things is something
computers do vastly better than I do. My writings took off with the advent of
HTML, which provided me with a suitable balance between
ease of writing
and display issues. This fortuitously made it easy to allow other folk access
to what I write; in so far as such access is any use to other folk, this is a
delightful bonus, which has encouraged a secondary purpose – to make the
site intelligible to other folk too – which is, in any case, well aligned
with much of my primary purpose.
The alignment between
getting it clear in my head, albeit via my
head's computer extension, and
making it useful to other folk is worthy
of note. It is slightly inaccurate to assert that
if I can't explain it to
other folk, then I don't undestand it, yet this is near enough to the truth
to serve as a useful guide – I'll say what I intend as best I can, even if
this is hard for other folk to understand (it may be also for me), but given a
choice between two ways of describing a matter, all other matters being near
enough equal, I'll prefer the one I imagine other folk better able to
understand. It's usually a pretty good guide at a good way of saying the
One more small digression, and I'll have somewhere to stuff all those fragments that I need to clean out from other pages because I don't want to lose the little sense there is in them, yet don't have a Right Place to put them, or Right Way to say them.
This page is unfinished. Maybe I'll get back to it some time. Apparently,
I thought a seciton on
apologiae, rants and kindred detritus might be
worth including; but I can't think why. I write haphazardly from time to time,
when I feel so inclined. I sometimes update an activity diary, in pages
associated with my thoughts of the moment, to reflect what
I'm playing with lately.
Check out Jamie
Zawinsky's just tirade
about the web
design industry; or Tim