coherent states

David Manifold
Tue, 23 Jun 1998 12:33:45 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, William Tanksley wrote:

> ...I see two dangers:
> first, you might spend all your time working with our little Tunes community
> developing our little Tunes vocabulary and then only when we finally release
> Tunes do we discover that our little vocabulary doesn't match reality (the
> solution to that might be getting flames from the Usenet); the second
> danger is that you might spend all your time making the vocabulary
> perfect and never attain the working system.

In my opinion, perfecting the vocabulary is the same as making the working
system.  At least, when the vocabulary is complete, the bulk of the work
that we need to do for Tunes will be done.  Following a specification is
easy, once you have one.  Getting the specification in a preliminary
state, which we are doing right now, seems harder.

So, I don't really see your second danger as a problem.  I think we have
to understand the system before we make it.

As for the first danger, whatever in the world is reality?  I thought the
whole point of programming was to create our own reality.  Just something
to think about.

> I'll help you keep from getting too isolated (for a little while, but no
> guerantees!), but I can't help you make the system quicker, because all I'm
> doing is arguing (I have my own projects).
> I guess I'm warning you to never pay too much attention to me --- or to
> yourself, for that matter.

The arguing, at this point, is what we need.  It will help us work out the
details of the system, the details that everyone is crying out for.  So,
if you are trying to weasel your way out of getting any credit, you're
too late.  You're already helping.  Now we know one detail of Tunes--
Billy Tanksley is in the credits.  Who else?

[David Manifold] <>