[jacobolus]

I think the author has a somewhat limited definition of “literature”, though he ultimately comes to the right conclusion that code must be “studied”, not “read”. It’s true, code is typically less linear than a pulp novel, but other types of literature are also involved, with layered meanings, which must be examined carefully, with reference material handy, and lots of flipping back and forth between sections. For instance, poems, philosophical treatises, historical analyses, and math textbooks must all typically be read this way.

[skue]

Did you read the article, or just the headline?

Seibel studied English, has written some popular programming books, and has had the experience of trying to set up code-reading seminars at multiple companies.[1] The key points of the article were 1) many programming gurus recommend reading code yet nobody does this; and 2) applying a lit-seminar approach to investigating code doesn't really work. That's all he was saying. There's no need to imply that his understanding of literature is limited to pulp fiction (I highly doubt that it is).

If you go through life looking for opportunities to argue semantics, you won't be disappointed. But you'll also miss most of the meaning.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/s/?field-keywords=peter%20seibel

[HCIdivision17]

Well put.

Personally, I have to use the skills I gained learning rhetoric and analyzing literature to make sense of some code bases. I've seen some shocking ball-o-mud code bases, and the only way to make sense of it was to understand the author(s), though never having met them. And to understand the subtext of the syntax, despite inconsistent application (poor naming convention and mixing ladder and structured text is like reading illuminated medieval engravings). There's code smells and slight variation in copy/paste blocks that belie the history of edits. There are threads woven through multiple volumes, where deprecated interlocks and crossed wires lead to bizarre plot twists. It's easy to think of certain machines as having personalities (or mental disorders, as the case may be). And there's never just an atomic dozen lines of code; at best you can reference five subroutines across two PLCs to describe what may be going on. And like good literature, you can't spoil the ending, as the joy is in the retelling of the story (of how you tracked down what was really happening).

It doesn't have to be a fascinating travesty, but I've yet to see a boring, dull, straightforward control system. Perhaps industrial programming logic just naturally turns out that way.

But it sure feels like Moby Dick, both in size, depth, and the unreliable narrator.

[shiro]

You summarize very well exactly what I felt from the article. I sometimes feel the metaphor goes the other way, that is, when I seriously read a literature (in my case, it's often a play) I feel like I'm "decoding" it.

[ozh]

Absofulukingtely. Litterature is like code, can be pretty obvious and linear and you just read it, or it can be deeply intelligent and you decode it, ponder over what it implies and what it assumes.

[rufus_t]

None of your examples are very good examples of "literature" as it's usually understood - in everyday use, the term by itself denotes prose fiction (and often excepting pulp novels). Not by coincidence, this is the "limited" definition Seibel uses.

[NoodleIncident]

Have you ever had a reason to read just part of a book? Pages 236-241 of Moby Dick, with no intention to ever read the rest? That seems to be a crucial difference between the two activities.

[Zancarius]

Moby Dick is probably a poor example. Something like the Iliad or the Bible might be appropriate since extensive studies often focus on a few chapters or verses. Yes, one normally reads the entirety of the work, but studying specific parts seems more apropos.

[ef4]

> Have you ever had a reason to read just part of a book?

Of course I have. Any time I've picked up a reference book, textbook, or anthology.

books != novels

[nollidge]

The author doesn't have a limited definition of literature, he's merely using one. It's pretty clear from context that he's talking about well-regarded prose novels, which is a perfectly cromulent usage of the word.