Literate programming: Knuth is doing it wrong (2014)

Re:Literate programming: Knuth is doing it wrong (2014) by jarenmf on Sunday January 09, 2022 @03:35AM (#29861482)

Aren't modern notebooks a form of Knuth's style literate programming, are there any differences? True, they are more mainstream in analytics where there's a need to explain concepts/results more than the logic of the code itself.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Literate programming: Knuth is doing it wrong (2014) by amelius on Sunday January 09, 2022 @07:01AM (#29862526)

Modern notebooks are closer to Stephen Wolfram's Mathematica notebooks.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Literate programming: Knuth is doing it wrong (2014) by andreareina on Sunday January 09, 2022 @07:45AM (#29862757)

Implied by arbitrary chunk order, chunks don't need to be stand-alone (or even syntactically valid, but that's probably asking for trouble):

    int main(int argc, char **argv) {
        <<main-parse-argv>>
        // ...
    }

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Literate programming: Knuth is doing it wrong (2014) by marcos100 on Sunday January 09, 2022 @06:28AM (#29862348)

Knuth's style allows code to be written in any order using named chunks.

AFAIK, there are some types of notebooks that allow the use of chunks, but I've never seen people writing in those.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Literate programming: Knuth is doing it wrong (2014) by disgruntledphd2 on Sunday January 09, 2022 @06:44AM (#29862434)

Org babel is the only one that works well, tbh.

[ Parent | on HN ]