1999. Ricky Martin. Brittany Spears. Sugar Ray. David Gelernter. “Wait. Do you mean Dave Matthews?” I do not.
Best known for developing the “Linda” programming language and surviving a unabomber attack, Gelernter is a computer science professor who wrote his manifesto in 1999 about the current and future state of computing. Fast forwarding 20 years, let’s see how things actually played out.
The piece starts out interesting enough, but it quickly feels as if half the read is him complaining about computers. For example, when he states, “The …”desktop” interface...is obsolete” or the mouse “...is a bad design.”. My favorite is his assessment that computer file directories are awful because they are, “...designed by programmers for programmers”.
“A file should be allowed to be in no directory, one directory, or many directories.” Reading that didn’t make sense until I thought maybe by “no directory” this guy means just have it laying around. Is he a super well-organized person? The opposite?
“Many files should be allowed to share one directory.” It’s called Excel. It’s been around since 1985.
“You shouldn't have to put files in directories. The directories should reach out and take them.” I think I know just the guy he can talk to about that!
Moving on. There are a few statements he makes that actually turned out mostly true. The one he hammered right on the head was regarding how people don’t want to be connected to computers, but rather the information we can access from computers. He also describes the future as computers everywhere that can be personally accessed by all with unique “calling cards”. While we’re not exactly carrying around “calling cards” computers are everywhere, and we do access them uniquely.
Gelernter might be a genius of sorts. I’ll give him credit for his computer language and predicting the modern day smartphone. He also seems a little screwy. He had this idea of a shadow butterfly (a real butterfly is ‘scanned’ into interactive cyberspace), and believes files shouldn’t need names. How do you find that which has no name? Here's Gelernter, by the way.
Gelernter might be a genius of sorts. I’ll give him credit for his computer language and predicting the modern day smartphone. He also seems a little screwy. He had this idea of a shadow butterfly (a real butterfly is ‘scanned’ into interactive cyberspace), and believes files shouldn’t need names. How do you find that which has no name? Here's Gelernter, by the way.
You did a great job of rooting your post in the Gelernter reading, and you also do a great job of writing in a conversational voice that works really well with blogging. My suggestion to improve this post is that you pull from a lot of different parts of the manifesto, which doesn't give you much time to discuss your analysis of them in depth. For example, you could have focused on Gelernter's ideas about file directories and gone into more detail about your opinions about it. Overall, this post is relevant, entertaining, and a good read. Nice job!
ReplyDeleteI agree with this comment on the fact that you would have been able to more robustly analyze Gelernter's predictions if you chose one or two specific quotes, rather than many. You have a few direct quotes, such as the first one about desktop interface, that go without explanation. Furthermore, it seems that in a few cases, you are reviewing Gelernter's statements in general rather than in the context of change in technology over time. I would suggest splitting up your direct quotes with at least a few sentences of explanation and review, especially your list of quotes after the third paragraph.
DeleteHi! I thought your post was very interesting and very critical of Gelernter. I really liked your intro sentence, it was pretty funny and catching. However, I felt like your blog post was more of a critique of his manifesto than an account of your own. While it was interesting to read your ridiculing of some of his ideas, it would've been nice to see how you connected or did not connect to some of his predictions. In addition, the formatting of your blog post was a little crazy, I'd recommend neatening it up for your revision!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the short paragraphs and use of imagery. You are a funny writer; in particular, I enjoyed how you described his manifesto as: ".. half the read is him complaining about computers." I think the analysis was perhaps a bit surface-level; given the disjoint nature of the manifesto, however, this is understandable. The transition between topics was slightly awkward. Maybe focus in more on one or the other. Overall, though, I really enjoyed this!
ReplyDeleteI thought the witty description of David Gelernter's work in computation made the post more accessible and interesting to read, and the post focused mainly on his reading. However, I think the analysis could have gone more in-depth and could be related to some more technological issues instead of just a synopsis of his work. The quotes could've been implemented in paragraphs a bit better, and shown more analysis instead of describing what his thought process was.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this blog post a lot. It was easy to read and the content gives a clear description of Gelernter’s work. The opening sentence is intriguing and it definitely drew my attention. The stance you have taken is interesting and I appreciate how you managed to voice your opinions in a clever and humorous way. However, I figured the quotes that you are using generally lack further explanations, which would be a little difficult for people who have not done the reading to comprehend the context. I think you did a good job explaining how Glernter formulated his assertions, but it would have been better if you could just focus on a couple of key points and give an in-depth account of them instead of simply pointing out the topics without much descriptions.
ReplyDelete