When discussing the role of component and pattern-oriented approaches in web design and content modeling, it's really useful to look at how the ideas (and vocabulary) made their way from the world of architecture (Christopher Alexander's Pattern Language, etc) to software dev.
The gang of four book ("Design Patterns", published in '07) was a huge influence on the software development world but Kent Beck and Ward Cunningham were writing about the idea of building software from reusable patterns in the 80s.
One of their earliest papers on the topic (c2.com/doc/oopsla87.h…) doesn't just spell out the *technical* aspects of the concept, but their motivations for introducing the pattern-centric approach to managing complexity.
They start by explaining Christopher Alexander's conviction that the people who will live, work, and socialize in a building should design it, because they have the clearest understanding of what they'll need.
To Alexander, architectural patterns weren't just a way to standardize things, an efficiency tool for his own work, or a tool for teaching and understanding other architects. They were a way of boiling complexity down to the important choices *a structure's users* could make.
Beck and Cunningham applied that reasoning to software: "Computer users should write their own programs. The idea sounds foolish when one considers the size and complexity… and the years of training for the design professions. Yet Alexander offers a convincing scenario."
In a post from just two years ago (facebook.com/notes/kent-bec…) Beck expands on the idea when describing life lessons he's learned: "Patterns isolate the repeating parts of problems and solutions so the unique aspects come into clearer focus."
The ideal of LEGO-esque systems is usually overhyped, but I think the principle is still critical: when planning or evaluating component and pattern systems, one of the most critical questions is, "What does this abstract away, and what things does it let us focus on?"
(My kingdom for an edit button. Design Patterns was published in 97, not 07...)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A personal note on that long-ass thread — in the years since I broke with Christian fundamentalism, my positions on many issues have changed. But my values — as in, the things that I value in my life and in the world — have been much steadier.
In that world, I was taught that what made me good — capable of kindness, able to help those around me, infused with purpose — was an external force that had saved me from my corrupt nature.
For someone who cares about other people, that's a terrifying framework to break out of. You have to re-learn new foundations for everything, learn to trust yourself and deal with both praise and criticism in very different ways.
As part of the upcoming @CRightcast project, I've been spending some time breaking down the building blocks of the fundamentalist ideology I was part of for many years. It's tough because — like many complex systems — the important themes are easily obscured by doctrinal details.
That isn't to say that specific doctrines aren't important. But the "religious right" is a messy conglomeration of groups that, in many situations, insist the other members are heretics. For folks outside the culture, it feel like an extended game of "No True Scotsman."
For me, understanding what I was a part of and unpacking its impact on how I saw the world required stepping back from the specific points of theology and doctrine, and looking at the patterns they formed; the ways of seeing, understanding, and responding.
Also, since everyone's dunking on the "That's witchcraft" thing — that is … not an unlitigated issue in Charismatic/Pentacostal Christianity, as it turns out! The conclusion boils down to: the line between Witchcraft and Prophecy is which supernatural being you're listening to.
If God tells you what's going to happen in the future, that's a prophetic gift. If you try to find out what will happen in the future from other supernatural sources (demons, ancestors, positions of planets, etc) that's witchcraft. Tidy!
The complicating factor, of course, is that ~prophecy~ is, Biblically speaking, a highly regulated profession and the Old Testament spells out in no uncertain terms that if you ~prophecy~ something and it doesn't come to pass you're a ~false prophet~ and you get stoned to death.
The merger of fundamentalist apocalypse eschatology and conservative totalitarianism fetish has been complete for a while, now they‘re just comfortable enough to talk about in mixed company.
I’m not being dismissive — there is genuine fear of totalitarian persecution, mixed with giddy fascination, at the heart of this rhetoric. A Thief In The Night meets McCarthyist rhetoric is a wild cocktail.
Tragically, the absolute certainty that they’ll be hunted and persecuted by [antichrist/antiamerica] dictators ... is the justification for the pursuit of dictatorial power and disenfranchisement of anyone they believe could be The Enemy.
Piper constructs elaborate, squirming abstracts to avoid saying anything negative about Trump by name.
Compare it to his full-throated condemnation of Obama over the course of earlier campaigns—because the clergy Obama associated with disagreed with Piper on culture-war topics.
The point here isn't to point out hypocrisy, rather it's to note the depth to which the religious right's warping of Christian cultural engagement around reproduction and sexuality has debased the church's role and voice.
Piper can barely bring himself to *obliquely* criticize the *kind* of person lies continually, cheats workers of their wages, puts children in cages to deliberately terrorize families, abuses the vulnerable, and a host of other sins.