Ossa Sepia

March 21, 2022

Two Days in Bath

Filed under: Lyf,Tgdyk tgdyk — Diana Coman @ 1:19 pm

On an unexpectedly sunny day at the very end of February, we jumped on a train and headed for Bath – a small town that shares with Reading the same straightforward approach to naming and relatively little else otherwise. One short hour away to the west of Reading, the building stone turns from mostly red to pale yellow, famous names and people are pushed to the forefront quite literally at times (the Roman emperors are made to guard the baths in statue form while Jane Austen guards the pavement in lifesize puppet shape), the architecture turns ambitious and claims high pride while nevertheless selling itself as much as it can. And everything gets otherwise quite tightly packed in the very centre of the relatively small town, despite there being otherwise seemingly enough space around, especially on the lovely hills that gently surround it all.

In the very centre of the tourist trap, the Bath abbey stands as the most massive side of a surprisingly small square, with the actual Roman baths that gave the town its name rather crowded and effectively built over for show, to its left. The abbey itself is the relatively usual Gothic affair, weather-eaten on the outside but well preserved, clean and even shiny on the inside. If anything, it’s perhaps less austere than some other churches around here, as it sports quite a few panels of stained glass – vividly colourful at least, even if nothing special otherwise. Outside, on the front of the abbey, there are chipped angel figures running up and down the ladders to Heaven and if some of them have tumbled down head first, it doesn’t seem to matter in any way. Inside, there are neat stone fans running across the whole ceiling and a sparkling shiny organ presiding over it all. There’s a whole lot more shiny and sparkly applied rather liberally and seemingly indiscriminately to altar cloths and the like, fitting at least the child’s current taste in decorations. Basically it’s all like a bigger and better Christmas tree from his point of view and I’d say it’s a valid way to look at it all, too:

bath2022_1_640.jpg
bath2022_40_640.jpg
bath2022_41_640.jpg
bath2022_42_640.jpg
bath2022_39_640.jpg

To the right of the abbey, there’s a row of souvenir and gifts shop, while to the left there is the complex built on top of the former Roman baths. To some extent it fits perhaps with the rest at least, as there is some overall shape to it all and if I don’t find it to be Roman in the least, it’s possibly simply that I’m asking, as usual, for what it once was or at least for what remained of that instead of any ersatz. To a tiny extent, I get at least a bit of my wish: deep down and literally under the whole of what seems at first look to be the baths (apparently the street level in Roman times was quite a few meters below the current street level), there are still the bits and pieces that endured somehow through all the successive stages of use, disuse, abuse, reuse.

Such pieces as were found and otherwise the outlines and general designs of the rooms themselves are quite well presented and shown together for the best effect with a clear aim to give as much as possible an idea of the life in and around the settlement rather than narrowly focusing on the functioning of the public baths. People threw coins into the water, then as now, and wanted their names and station remembered if at all possible, then as now. Some came to the baths to bathe, some to steal, some to ask the gods for the return of stolen items and for the punishment of the suspected or even the strongly-believed-to-be-thief. Possibly the only difference between the papers left today in the church’s box and the tablets left back then at the old temples is one of tone and essentially extent of allowed freedom of speech – the old gods were apparently less restrictive, accepting requests for both blessings and curses, allowing just about any tone one cared to use. Overall though, then as now, when confronted with a problem they couldn’t solve themselves, people appealed to some greater power and at least at times, the wording of such appeals suggests they quite expected their appeal to be effective indeed, regardless of anything else.

bath2022_3_640.jpg
bath2022_2_640.jpg
bath2022_37_640.jpg
bath2022_36_640.jpg

bath2022_34_640.jpg
bath2022_35_640.jpg

Despite the disappointment of that ersatz of a building with a gallery of added statues of emperors put on sentry duty at the public baths on top of it all and despite the annoying abundance of shiny red interdictions to touch or have anything to do with the water on show (which is indeed rather uninvitingly greenish, apparently due to algae that are entirely a problem of the modern setting, not at all an artefact of the original baths), the part underground, where one finally gets closer to the remains such as they are, was worth seeing. And if anything, it’s probably the merit of the detailed attempt to set the found remains within a wider context that there was indeed some longing to be able to walk through the remains such as they were rather than through the later reimagining of “something Roman” while utterly ignoring at that what was even known of the original setting – if only they restored the original design that had been functional, too, not meant only for show (it even had statues, at that, only they were those of the gods, not of emperors but in those times even the gods were closer apparently to mere mortals for their statues were actually in the water, not looking on from high up). Still, for all the Greek inscription carved in the stone of the later-day building turned central restaurant, the original baths, temple and the whole settlement or town itself seem to have been quite an interesting blend of everything really, with the local and the Roman gods linked together into the Sulis Minerva name, with visitors and workers from as far as the Levant, with a temple pediment that features a male face of Minerva and a mixture of symbols – though not even a trace of Greek writing whatsoever:

bath2022_38_640.jpg

Slightly off-centre, inside the Victoria Art Gallery, a few beauties in white marble venture forth, seemingly in an attempt to escape from the awful combination of a red fire sign, an iron central heater and the sash window background. One of them is bolder, the other one more cautiously peering around the marble column but both stuck in place nevertheless:

bath2022_22_640.jpg

Still close to the centre, there is the New Theatre Royal building with its balcony on top of a building that seems rather too small for such a big name. Not far away from it, a less squarish and taller building claims in carved stone a less royal although funnier name that tends to be around here the trademark of a Thai restaurant chain: the giggling squid.

bath2022_24_640.jpg
bath2022_27_640.jpg

bath2022_26_640.jpg
bath2022_25_640.jpg

Beyond the “must see” baths and abbey, the town’s point of pride is its georgian architecture. The Gay Street goes steeply up until it turns at the very top into the Circus – and once there, one realises that this fabled georgian architecture means in practice simply long rows of the same window repeated ad nauseam, whether in long parallel lines or in semi-circular endings capping the avenues. The desired effect is one of greatness and in a severely narrowed perspective, if I squint until my eyes hurt, I can just about see it. On long avenues, there is at least the pleasant effect of perceived abundance of space but funnily enough, for all the clearly desired uniformity of this architectural style, nature still refuses to play ball with it and turns it all instead in a marked play of opposing contrasts, one side basked in light while the other is submerged in the shadows. Moreover, behind the back of such streets, human nature plays even more roughly with it and sprouts such a huge sprawling of mismatched everything as if to fully counterbalance the pretense of perfect uniformity that the facade holds so dear. Oh, and on a side note, let it be said also that the Roman plumbing at the baths is still satisfactorily working today, while the phrase “georgian plumbing” was used disparagingly by every restaurant owner that I met while in town 1.

bath2022_19_640.jpg
bath2022_17_640.jpg
bath2022_18_640.jpg
bath2022_15_640.jpg
bath2022_16_640.jpg
bath2022_20_640.jpg

On a side street, one of the windows in a row holds however a bit more behind it than the rest – the house is where a German called Herschel settled at first to give music lessons and ended up in quick order building telescopes, discovering new planets and speculating on the composition of nebulae. As a result, the world nearly ended up with a planet called George (a kingly name, don’t scoff at it!) but in the end it all worked out for the best – Herschel got the king’s attention and with it funding to further pursue his astronomy interest where he made more advances than in his music career and the planet still got in the end a name more in tune with the other planets’ names: Uranus. On a side note, it was in this museum that I found out just why exactly is an orrery called that: because it was the Earl of Orrery who commissioned the first such thing to be made, as simple as that. On the other hand, I still have no idea why was the title itself called “Orrery” since the earldom was of Cork and the surname was simply Boyle. Supposedly there is some older Gaelic word linking it all to some meaning but it’s all getting rather very fuzzy indeed from this point on so I’ll leave it at that and be thankful that it wasn’t the Earl of George to commission that first model of the solar system.

bath2022_32_640.jpg
bath2022_33_640.jpg

Leaving aside the baths, the circus and the neverending rows of windows, the town’s buildings tend to be relatively squarish although retaining some of the Roman villa style at times, quite often with a rather pleasant effect. Some have rounded corners with ornate carvings and even cleaner stone that makes it all look quite pretty indeed.

bath2022_13_640.jpg
bath2022_31_640.jpg
bath2022_5_640.jpg

A bit further away from the abbey, standing at a three-roads intersection of sorts, there’s a more slender church with a narrow spire and the best church door handles that I ever saw, basically a depiction of saints in such a genuinely alive manner that it made me think yet again of Caravaggio and his futile quest to get official recognition for genuine life representations:

bath2022_4_640.jpg
bath2022_14_640.jpg
bath2022_23_640.jpg

Besides the above door handles, the church has a rather puzzling but fitting name: Saint Michael Without. The clue to the puzzle is in the older meaning of without – not as much a lack of something as merely a positioning by contrast to within, meaning thus simply outside of the town’s walls, because apparently at the time when it was built, this church was indeed outside the official walls. Fitting handles therefore, I should think, with the two saints not as much concerned with their sainthood as rather humorously pointing to one another their respective interests, it seems to me. Judging by the spear held by one and the book held by the other, I’d guess them to be St. Michael and St. Paul but first of all they seem to me like a pair of good friends who care for one another even though they have quite different approaches and interests: teasingly if good naturedly pointing out what they each perceive to matter most, while willing to look at least at what the other is pointing at, even if not really wishing to touch it. Still, for entering the church, it sadly turned out that spear *and* book are not even enough – one needs a key too, so perhaps St. Peter should have joined in, as well.

Even further away from both the centre and the former “without” area, the streets open up to the surrounding greenery and there is an even more peaceful air to it all. We walked around the town several times to the point where we knew our way without any map and if benches ended up in the pictures, too, it’s simply because they were at the right place to have a break, nothing more than that. Other than benches though and to my pleasant surprise, we even found birch trees right in town and close to the river. And in the rather small area called the botanical garden, there was a trunk carved as a human figure – without arms, it is true, but what would he need the arms for, anyway?

bath2022_11_640.jpg
bath2022_12_640.jpg
bath2022_21_640.jpg
bath2022_28_640.jpg
bath2022_29_640.jpg

  1. Speaking of restaurants, we found this Italian place that could have equally been in Napoli for all one knew once inside. Everything, from food to setting and people were as authentically South Italian as it gets and combined with the sun shining through a skylight that showed, dust and dirt notwithstanding, a whole jumble of inner courtyard architectural outgrows that would have been perfectly at home in Rome, it all had the predictable effect of my talking switching at times to Italian before I quite knew it – not that anyone complained of it at all. The child didn’t care much for language or for setting but was utterly delighted with the food and even more so with the gelato, of course.[]

March 5, 2022

The Chimera of Perfection, the Beast of Worse, the Unnamed Other

Filed under: Sense and nonsense — Diana Coman @ 4:33 pm

Jacob Welsh: Where do you think the Worse is Better approach falls between the two poles you describe? The current state of things seemed to me largely the inevitable result of the subsequent two decades’ continuing dominance of exactly Gabriel’s recipe, and for the reasons he described. Perhaps on the first take I confused it with “being practical”; and I found it repulsive although I could not refute it. Kind of like the “network effects” thing (looks like the continuation of that thread was shortly after the Young Hands closure, perhaps I should bridge it in).

Diana Coman: Reading that Gabriel piece you linked, I admit that…. hm, I found it quite painful to read because I can’t really stand *either* of the approaches he describes. I suppose it can be simply because I’m actually more extreme than all extremists (only I care less to shout/argue about it really) but I suspect the difference really is one of more fundamental approach. I might need to give it some more thinking and a write-up to make it clear.

This is part of the write-up promised above. That suspicion of mine turns out to be quite true (and the supposition possibly not entirely false either!) – only it took first of all a lot more (re)reading of Richard P. Gabriel’s books and references 1 before I could start to get even as little as just a glimpse of what that difference might be, as it goes deep indeed and it spreads also into a whole web of roots before any of it shows out in the open, directly exposed to be looked at.

In a very compressed nutshell that threatens anyway to spill and grow not into a single tree but into a whole jungle at the very least, I think that software is essentially a cultural artefact rather than an industrial product and this means that both its impact and its generative process are intertwined and very far indeed from being adequately captured by any linear (whether iterative or not, piecemeal or not) model of mere patterns, recipes, methodologies or even neatly predictable at every step frameworks. Essentially, the generative process is fractal in nature. As a result, approaches don’t have just a straight line on which to position themselves and what might seem wildly different steps when looked at from close-up or over a short-term interval, can predictably converge nevertheless to results that share crucial characteristics to the point where their differences -such as might still be found at a very close look- are in fact irrelevant.

Software being a cultural artefact goes both ways and in quite the precise manner, too – just as software impacts and transforms the wider social environment of its time, it is also influenced and constricted by it so that the observed patterns or shapes of successful software or even those of its development process are more likely to reflect and be restricted by wider patterns than merely those of the domain itself, let alone even finer grained ones such as those supposedly imposed through direct management. The exact way in which the broader patterns get reflected and find their expression in the software domain is not random either, nor is it based on either direct copy or just a broad and imprecise, seemingly haphazard similarity. Instead, the similarity is that of the fractal nature 2 and as such, any attempt to convincingly model (and thus predict correctly) software development in a lasting way will have to find the correct mix of chaos and order or perhaps, at the very least, some sort of clever distillation of its core into something useful, a la DS.

There’s a big gap indeed between patterns, methodologies and even complex industrial processes on one side and fractal modelling (such as it exists currently) on the other. Perhaps more of a chasm even rather than a mere gap – it is after all nothing less than moving from the neatly intuitive world of low integer dimensions to the bewildering world of non-integer dimensions. This is at the very root of why I perceive both “the right thing” and the “worse is better” approaches 3 as merely variations of the same failure mode rather than alternatives in any meaningful sense: they both have in common an ultimately sterile, too narrow, even too linear at times focus, be it on some illusory ideal correctness in the first case or on some equally illusory ideal simplicity in the second case. The existing attempts at improvement, even when they go beyond the strict linearity of early models, still fail to address the root cause because their informing worldview conceives only of integer dimensions. And all the while, life teems instead beyond the decimal point.

From a more practical point of view, the narrow focus on an ideal, theoretical correctness fails in the marketplace for the very reasons that Gabriel identifies from his direct experience 4 and I’ll add to that only one piece of my relatively recent experience with just one instance of why and how theoretically wonderful ideals that are however practically untenable can literally turn even a valuable concept into a worse than useless software product. Note though that the trouble doesn’t stem from *correctness* itself but from a narrow and too rigid focus on it that fails first of all to distinguish what truly matters from what doesn’t and then to take into account the much more complex and less ideal constraints that real world use imposes nevertheless. This is why I consider this approach simply misguided at core – it’s correctness wrongly applied that ends up sterile, not correctness per se.

Essentially, the narrow focus on a theoretical correctness, sometimes dubbed “the right thing” approach, chases the chimera of perfection as if perfect can ever apply to a live (hence, evolving) artefact existing in the real world. Like all products of the imagination though, such chimera can be indeed very attractive to contemplate or even to work towards, since it has, for as long as it lasts, the powerful allure of the ideal compounded by the unlimited freedom of imagination to pick and choose what it likes, to ignore what it doesn’t want to handle. And it can be certainly made to seem entirely real and worth pursuing for a while, usually while there are still resources coming in from outside to support the chase. Sooner or later though, chaotic reality with its various messy parts including all sorts of different and even conflicting requirements and priorities catches up with it and the ideal turns out to be indeed neither possible in reality nor quite that easily adaptable at this juncture to it. As a result, whatever comes out of this approach tends to fail to thrive and survive (meaning further evolve rather than merely existing), dieing perhaps as a result of an overdose of order and structure or, looking at it from the other side, starved for lack of chaos.

If, however, one is so dispirited by such failure or so hungry for the sheer vital force that is indeed plentiful in chaos to abandon order and structure entirely and let chaos take full hold, the result is but a primitive beast, the most pedestrian interpretation of the “worse is better” argument. Such beast as might come out of chaos without much structural guidance at all is undeniably alive and even quite fascinating perhaps, especially for as long as it’s still small enough so that some amount of taming is still possible and thus some use can be extracted out of it. But its chaotic nature means first of all that, as it gets bigger, it becomes increasingly difficult to control or handle at all, let alone grow or even merely steer in some specific direction that doesn’t happen to match its inclination 5.

As internal control becomes increasingly (and even non-linearly so) difficult, the focus necessarily shifts to controlling the environment instead and this is indeed more easily achieved at this juncture, nevermind that such control is spelling death in the longer term 6 as it is stifling and draining any value out of the environment instead of adding to it. The money accumulates just as the vitality drains 7 and there is then no choice but to press forwards and keep getting bigger through destruction of anything and everything else, through the consumption of anything that exists or that still finds a way to grow on its own 8. Instead of creating anything, the overgrowth of internal chaos and external control merely sterilizes and otherwise consumes – currently this consumption process is generally dubbed “acquisition” and it usually targets startups that supposedly win whatever is paid for them but lose in fact not just any value that they had but even the very possibility of having a value or just a different approach of their own at all. Perhaps it even is a good deal for the startups or at least for those that never thought or stopped thinking that they had any other chance to matter, anyway.

Looking again at my notes from reading the “Patterns of Software” book and the set of “worse is better” essays by Gabriel, what strikes me most is how often my observations and questions either directly predict what turns out to follow a couple of paragraphs further or otherwise keep pushing for the broader context and at least a glimpse of a model of what is talked about, instead of just a collection of patterns. Arguably this is part and parcel of that fundamental difference of approach that I was noting above: I am always and forever apparently aiming to model something (meaning to understand and integrate it fully to the point that I can then reliably *predict* it, in other words generate it) and never fine with merely describing and cataloguing it, no matter in how much detail. At the same time, both Richard P. Gabriel and Cristopher Alexander, the original architect of the patterns approach, seem to state repeatedly that it’s precisely the “generative” approach that they are aiming for and fail to achieve satisfactorily in practice.

Perhaps I’m missing something (and especially for Alexander’s work, there is still a lot of reading that I need to do before I have something more specific to say about it) but to my eye there’s quite a big and obvious missing link between describing something as observed (even across many different instances in various environments) and modelling successfuly its underlying, generative process. Extracting the common observed core is one approach useful for generalization, certainly but I don’t think it’s all that often enough for making that next step of modeling the process that resulted in the observed artefacts. Possibly the focus on descriptive patterns identification, definition and matching is in itself a mark of Gabriel’s background in AI but for me it seems yet again uncomfortably close to that overspecialisation and overfitting, too narrow redefinition of success even, that I railed against and refused to go with, not so very long ago, despite any and all “common consensus” or “how things are done” or even apparent simplicity considerations. That choice of mine was extremely satisfying, very fruitful both in terms of concrete results and as a learning endeavour 9 and the parts publicly documented on this blog are just that, only parts of a much bigger, working whole that exhibits precisely the sort of quality that proves so elusive (for a good, underlying reason, I’d say) when following the patterns-matching branch: it’s generative and fully capable of carrying meaning too, when embedded in an environment designed on the same fundamental principles. This is neither an accident nor specific to computer graphics or online games but flowing directly from what modelling is and how it works.

Coming back to the question that prompted this article, if neither the chimera of perfection nor the beast of worse truly appeals, the unnamed other is yet to fully spring out from that very nutshell I mentioned earlier. Perhaps a more palatable (hence, practical) description of what that nutshell holds is that software requires a discerning, integrative and generative approach rather than a narrow focus. Discernment is crucial as it’s the only way to identify what matters and without such a correct identification, everything that follows is already doomed to fail. Integration is required for growth, properly speaking and it should be a flexible rather than fixed approach, bringing together different parts that maintain their character and their own capability to further evolve, quite a different thing altogether from the rigid and constricting approach of separated objects, containers and the like, while also, at the higher level, very different indeed from that devouring approach of “acquisition”. Generative means that the whole maintains at all times that balance between sufficient structure to support and enough chaos to enable new and even unexpected things to appear. These are not simple requirements and they don’t work in isolation either. This is why I think that what is needed is not just some new development method as such but an environment to match, with a guiding, principled structure that supports and even causes as wild variety as possible followed then by selection and filtering. Note though that such selection and filtering are not meant to be restricted to the usually binary choice of yes/no, dies/lives. Selection and filtering should allow and even mean the much more variety-friendly choice of continuous readjustment of relative positions and relationships.

On the very bright side, I think that the necessary parts for all the above are in fact already available and what it takes as next step is putting them all together and to practical use. Hence my previously unexamined calling of that unnamed other approach that I’ve been already using in practice for quite some time as simply… being practical 10.

  1. Yes, I was already aware of his most famous writings but the start of that awareness dates back to more than 10 years ago, when I was much younger and knew way less – and as I had encountered his writing mainly in a sort of second hand way, through experience with approaches and results that claimed to follow his direction but I found to be misguided at best (those catalogues of software patterns come first to mind and I don’t even want to go further with that recollection), I never really saw the point in digging deeper to the roots that apparently yielded such rotten fruit. Quite the example of why and how exactly the wrong publicity really is worse than no publicity at all because I think that his life experience is certainly valuable and despite being clearly, neatly and even entertainingly written and discussed in his books, it actually got more or less lost in the shadow of the sound bite that became… viral, indeed, quite ironically given its very topic.

    In any case, after a full read of his books on patterns and on open source, I’d say that one can perhaps disagree with his conclusions, interpretations and even approach (from what I gather even he still disagrees at times with himself!), as well as dismiss his advice or direction but only after taking in fully the solid and very relevant account of his experience in the field that both informs and makes his writing read as it does.

    As possibly always and everywhere, the sound bite is neither enough nor useful by itself and trying to pluck the results of experience without digesting at least the available account of that experience is just another form of misappropriation that results inevitably in sad and rotten fruit. The responsibility for such rotten fruit though is not with the original writing but with those who picked only the viral part out of its context and ran then blindly with it.

    []

  2. It is “the” and not “a” fractal nature. A breadcrumb to mark the entrance to this particular rabbit hole is in a footnote to a very compressed review of a very compressed film aptly called La Grande Belezza. And yes, I was indeed referencing exactly this, back when last summer ended.[]
  3. In fairness, from my reading of some of Richard P. Gabriel’s books and essays as published on his website (Innovation Happens Elsewhere: Open Source as Business Strategy, Patterns of Software: Tales from the Software Community, Worse Is Better, Worse is Better is Worse, Is Worse Really Better?), it seems to me that he has been aiming and even advocating for exactly a less narrow approach to software development, not at all for what turned up in practice even while quoting his essay as inspiration or source. In other words and in reply perhaps to Jim Waldo’s statement that “The classic essay on “worse is better” is either misunderstood or wrong”, I think that the classic essay is mostly misunderstood -and even misappropriated, I would add- rather than wrong.[]
  4. Read the last two parts of his “Patterns of Software book” and you’ll find it all there.[]
  5. I’m talking from direct experience with fully taming such a chaotic beast, not that I ever actually wanted to gain this sort of experience nor that it was what I had signed up for or even imagined programming might turn into. It’s still quite real and if you think that it isn’t so, I’m quite curious to hear about it so go ahead and leave a comment in that box below this article, please.[]
  6. Perhaps the discussion and illustration of a core trouble with economics without vision can prove helpful here.[]
  7. There’s a lot begging to be said on this point alone but for now I’ll merely add a single breadcrumb picked more by serendipity than anything else: vitality can be very easily perceived as “too much to handle” and it’s again a matter of and telling about the wider environment as a whole.[]
  8. This is how Microsoft ended up turning personal computers into a sort of semi-interactive television sets and Google ended up turning a vast library of knowledge into a giant advertisement panel and discussion of ideas into a mere popularity contest that bots are winning, too.[]
  9. Most of the past year’s articles on this blog would fit as reference for this and they don’t even capture it all, not even by far.[]
  10. On examination though, there certainly seems to be quite a lot more to this being practical of mine, since its attempted description doesn’t fit even by far in all the 3000+ words of this article (without even counting the references) and there are also quite a few directions that I didn’t even mention here, just to try and keep that nutshell reasonably compact and clear, hopefully.[]

Work on what matters, so you matter too.