divorce/gzz-mirror
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

created mirror

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
whatever
2026-09-14 20:19:29 -04:00
commit 6764738d92
600 changed files with 87187 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

111
Modules/zaubertrank/README.html Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
<html>
<head>
<title>The zaubertrank applitude</title>
</head>
<body>
<h1>
The zaubertrank applitude</h1>
<div align=right><i>by Benjamin Fallenstein (<a href="mailto:b.fallenstein@gmx.de">b.fallenstein@gmx.de</a>)</i></div>
<h2>
Name issues</h2>
The zaubertrank is pronounced TSAU-ber-trunk. The name means "magic potion"
in German.
<h2>
Raison d'&ecirc;tre</h2>
"Programming for people." As
<a href="http://www.erasmatazz.com/team_bios/chris.html">Chris
Crawford</a> argues in his book
<i><a href="http://www.erasmatazz.com/book.html">Understanding
Interactivity</a></i> (2000), computers can expand our capabilities of
thought as much as the written word, but in a different direction: while
writing improved our sequential thinking (thinking in complex chains of
ideas), computers can improve what Chris calls subjunctive thinking (thinking
in many different possibilities). While the book allowed us to bring together
many different ideas, the computer program allows us to explore the countless
permutations resulting from a fixed set of rules. Instead of explaining
the effects of every single possible action to a recipient, we can write
a simulation they can experiment with.
<p>Write a simulation? We need to be able to program for that, right?
<p>The zaubertrank aims to be what the alphabet was (following Chris' line
of thought) for the Greeks: the very tool that made writing easy to learn,
that was the necessary prerequisite for a culture in which 'everybody'
(every free grown-up male) was supposed to be able to read and write. Before
the alphabet, there were thousands and thousands of signs which one needed
to know by heart in order to produce a written text, or even understand
one. Scribes where a very special class of people who had gotten a lot
of training. The alphabet reduced these signs to a small number which,
once learned, resembled the spoken language. Something people already knew.
<p>So what does the zaubertrank do? In a way, the same. The complex world
of signs and abbrevations programming languages consist of is translated
into natural language (albeit not everyday language). Sentences like "Put
the selected card on top of the stack the user clicked on" replace cryptic
formulas like "selected.put(clickStack)," formulas which need time to understand
and more time to actively write. The user doesn't enter these sentences;
that would require a natural language parser far beyond our reach. Rather,
they put it together from fragments functionally equivalent to the tokens
of a programming language: "Put (which card?) on (which stack?)," "the
selected card," and "the stack the user clicked on." This putting together
with menus and mouses also ensures that there can't be any syntax errors:
the computer won't allow the user to enter anything wrong.
<p>Will this make computer programming trivial? No, unfortunately not.
Creating a program will still be a complex task needing some thought. But
hopefully, the barriers will be lowered, the learning curve will be better,
and a program won't look as cryptic to non-programmers.
<h2>
My aim right now</h2>
In 2001, I will be teaching a course on Interactive Storytelling, which
uses the computer for interactive literary narrative. The interaction here
is not between author and reader or even different authors; rather, it's
between the reader and their computer. Stories take the form of interactive
simulations. Ever read a <i>Choose Your Own Adventure</i> book? Well, if
you imagine a more intelligent behind-the-scenes system than "flip to a
different page," you have the idea of what we'll be dealing with at first.
<p>As the people in this course won't be computer science students, I need
some good way to teach them programming easily without wasting <i>too</i>
much time on it.
<p>So right now, I'm working on a first version of the zaubertrank, which
shall be suitable for the needs of my course. The goals are: user interaction
in "turns;" relative freedom in the internal workings of the literary simulation;
easy to use for some simple structures, without the need of understanding
the internals right off; an interface showing some text and some possible
reactions (which you can click on). Of course, I need some good editing
tools for the programs, too.
<p>I want to realize this as a <a href="http://www.gzigzag.org">GZigZag</a>
applitude or <i>zone of functionality.</i> ZigZag(tm) is a new "world"
for computing, designed by
<a href="http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~ted/">Ted Nelson</a>,
the inventor of computer-based hypertext. It aims to be a replacement for
the file system, for the common user interfaces, for confining structures
like lists, tables, and hierarchies, and for many other things most people
take for granted in their everyday computer use. GZigZag is a free implementation
of the system, lead by Tuomas Lukka at the University of Jyv&auml;skyl&auml;,
Finland. An applitude is to ZigZag what an application is to the common
computer world, with the difference that applitudes are combinable -- that
is, they live in the same bigger structure and can share parts of their
substructures. One way to look at applitudes is to say they're a way to
interpret a part of the structure. Applitudes can contain custom views,
that is views of the structure which look (somewhat) like the text editors
or other programs we know so well. At the same time, the underlying structure
can be viewed in generic views, which show the "bare metal" in useful ways,
so that it's easy to see how things are stored.
<p>Why, you ask, would anyone choose a completely different computer world
they have trouble explaining as the basis for a new system of computer
programming which shall function as the core of a new form of literature
they have even more trouble explaining? Well, because the trouble with
today's programming languages is not only in their cryptic syntax, but
also in the non-visibility of their inner workings. A whole mental model
needs to be build of variables, objects and so on, which can never be shown
on the screen (or only with sophisticated tools written for the classroom).
ZigZag makes this simple. If the underlying design is right, it will be
easy to show what's going on when a program is executed. Besides, once
the ZigZag model is learned, modeling otherwise complex structures in programs
will be easy, because the ZigZag model makes them easy: that's why Tuomas,
the technical leader of the GZigZag project, calls it a "hyperstructure
kit," a toolkit for creating structures beyond lists, tables, and hierarchies.
<h2>
Components I need</h2>
</body>
</html>