On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:34:43 -0500, Peter T. Daniels
<grammatim@...> wrote:

> Richard Sproat's review of WWS criticized the last chapter for not going
> into how computers work. He had no answer for what value such a
> discussion written in 1993 would have even by the time the book was
> published in 1996.

Well, I could write enough about how computers work for WWS readers, and
it would be concise enough to post here on Qalam. It would also be
understandable, provided one were willing to accept some unfamiliar ideas.
Computers are not great mysteries; their underlying principles are not
hard to understand, but unfamiliar to many. What distinguishes computers
is that they are exceedingly versatile, their basic principles of
operation are remarkably clever, and technological progress in both
reliability* and performance has been conservatively described as
phenomenal. We really do possess magic boxes. *Not excellence in writing
software, necessarily!

I doubt that WWS should have any general explanations of how computers
work. Mr. Sproat was wrong, if he implied that. However, I believe we are
referring to Section 74, "Analog and Digital Writing".

Naturally, I was extremely interested in reading that Section. To put it
not too gently, the author didn't understand the esssential basics of his
topic. It might have been written by an art critic. (I have personal
experience of the disasters created by hiring a Ph. D. in English to edit
technical writing, written by technicians who understood their topics, so
I know whereof I speak. I have been a technical writer (BMEWS) and an
editor (Electronic Design magazine).)

Mr. Daniels, while I have great respect for the work you have done, I'm
sorry to say, you should not have written that section. You were not
qualified.

I make no pretensions about my knowledge or ability about what Qalam is
concerned with; I'm a dilettante and amateur who greatly appreciates the
opportunity to communicate with world experts; Qalam is very democratic!

This matter, Section 74, has been bothering me, significantly, for some
time, and I thought that I might never bring it up.

As to time scale, concerning the topic of that Section, without pondering
the matter too deeply, I would say that one might consider developments
roughly every five years.

=

For now, because I think it's too far off-topic, I won't go into such
matters as the practical, real-world philosophy of analog and digital,
and their implications. However, I found that I'd made some quick notes on
factual matters. Disclaimer: I did not, just now, re-read the Section.

Offset (lithographic) printing is significantly different from mimeograph.
I know enough about both technologies to be confident of stating that.

Fine point, but Ditto is a tradmark for a spirit duplicator ("spirit"
seems to be primarily British usage, referring to alcohol).

Type metal is not made of lead, alone. It is a lead alloy, which includes
antimony to make it much harder. Pure lead (I have played with it, in past
years) is quite soft.

"Sholes" was misspelled.

The Selectric typewriter is not electronically controlled. Technically, it
is quite remarkable. It has an electric motor to operate it. If the speed
were right, it could be powered by a foot treadle, like sewing machines.
The rest of it is totally mechanical -- machinery. What's remarkable is
that the machinery uses principles much more typical of electronic
devices; a good part of the mechanism is binary, and it contains two
digital-to-analog converter mechanisms, although they are not called that.
Those two position the ball.

Phototypesetters used (precisely-timed) flash lamps. (I want to see why I
noted that...)

There was not much said about inkjet printers, although omitting that
might be OK, if this were written in 1993. I think it might have required
a specialist to predict their popularity and success. In truth, my
recollection of inkjet technology isn't especially solid. Canon and H-P
developed practical, modern inkjet printers, and back then, other types
were commonplace, as nearly as I can recall.
(One thought: On a topic subject to rapid change, it might have been wise
to set aside the text as requiring review late in the production process.)

Bit-mapped versus scaleable fonts? Gosh. Really-important topic. I no
longer recall to what extent that topic was treated, but seems to me I
recall short shrift. By 1993, it was a significant matter; I recall Amiga
owners begging, without success, for scaleable fonts, back in 1987.

(Perhaps too detailed, but a concise description of "character-cell"
(inherently monospaced) text-display screens vs. graphic display probably
should have been included. I wrote something on that for Qalam recently.
Going further off-topic -- sometimes, to be concise, I presume that
readers know what, for instance, Windows-1252 or MacRoman are, but I also
realize that not everyone reading what I write does know those. I do try
to avoid being too specialist; I wouldn't discuss dynamic (color)
convergence in color monitors, for instance. Recent and wondrous,
delighful messages concerning Thai and Khmer specifics were mostly 'way
beyond me, which is perfectly OK.)

A PostScript printer connection is digital.

WP (Word Perfect? Word processors in general?) can save drafts -- That
note now puzzles me.

Probably a very minor point, but afaik, the documents (RFCs --Requests For
Comment) that define e-mail provide ways to cancel messages after they
have been sent. In practice, systems are rarely, if ever set up to do that.

I mean no malice.

Peace.

> There's enough for me to know about writing systems, that I have no
> interest in knowing about computers as well.

Well, that depends upon what *kind* of knowledge! That "no interest" is,
de facto, very provocative.

Surely, if you were using a typewriter for another language, you'd want to
know about "dead" (technically, non-escaping) keys?
If you were using a keyboard layout for another language, you'd want to
know about the corresponding variety of key?

Surely, for instance, you do know how to use a floppy disk, and it's very
likely you know how to set a floppy to prevent (or enable) adding or
replacing data on it. Mac made using floppies even easier, from the
beginning. You most likely know how to use the Mac key with the four-leaf
outline (I understand it's nicknamed "splat" by the irreverent :) ),
U+2318.

Otoh, there's no point whatsoever for you to know anything about the
differences among various CPU chips. PowerPC chips are Good Things; a G5
is newer and better than a G4. That's the total scope you might like/need
to know. Differences between Intel and AMD are utterly irrelevant for
you, as are out-of-order execution/instruction reordering, and branch
prediction.

What we are pestering you about is matters that *any* Mac user, no matter
how apart from the technological world he or she may be, needs to know and
be aware of. We made it rather plain that somebody whose field is writing
systems should have quite a good idea of what his computer can accept and
render as to character repertoire, as well as the ways of organizing
those. Said person should know how, to the extent practically possible, to
make his/her computer do what's wanted.

Please keep in mind that computers are still too hard, but not impossible,
to use. In the long run, I doubt that we've reached the counterpart of the
Model T Ford. (The Canon Cat was amazing, but horribly mis-marketed; was
as easy to use as a typewriter.)

In pre-computer days, a purchaser of a foreign-language typewriter would
surely be interested in knowing the exact char. repertoire provided, as
well as technical details such as "dead" keys. Of course, modern computer
typography offers enormous repertoire, comparatively.

The above could stand editing, but this is not going to be bound into a
book. The ability to easily insert text anywhere has its down side.

===

There's a strange and very distressing imbalance between the primarily
tech/sci/math community and the "esthetic/cultural" community. The t/s/m
community seems prepared to hang its collective head in shame for not
having developed enough ability and awareness of the "e/c" side of life.
However, the "e/c" community seems, not rarely, to be actually proud of
its ignorance! Both are unbalanced, but that pride can be really galling.
Nobody should take pride in being ignorant. Nobody. For no reason.

Several Qalamites who have recetly posted have the sort of working, users'
knowledge of computers that makes sense. They don't need to know what
double-data-rate RAM is, nor why it's called "RAM" and not "Read-Write
Memory". (Concisely: History) However, it seems to me that these Qalamites
know a decent amount about the "t/s/m" realm.

[nb:]

>> I liked what Barry said. Indeed, let's be peaceful, and try not to
>> upset others.
>>
>> As Dave Garroway used to say when "signing off",
>>
>> Peace!

Gee... My apologies. I'm just *much* too concerned to stay silent. I'll
get over it. Maybe take the topic off-list? I think many wouldn't mind. I
suspect that many are either deleting messages in this/these threads or
leaving them unread.

Better to spruce up (homonym, there), have brunch, go out, and see whether
the crocuses are up yet in the yard.

--
Nicholas Bodley /*|*\ Waltham, Mass.
The curious hermit -- autodidact and polymath