This Article Represents a Milestone for Me (2022/12/18)
From recent results, I will develop my experience, content design, and some news representing one of my latest milestones on 2022/12/18.
I have to say that this article I published 3 days ago represents a milestone for MathSwe content as I’ve started to work with the concepts of:
- Composable content.
- Cohesive content.
- Smooth homogeneous content that moves on the system tree.
- Got a new open graph cover.
This powerful concept will allow readers to move over the system tree smoothly and enable me to create unlimited scalable articles by writing focused high-quality content that is decoupled from other topics so that readers can use composition to deep more within other details if needed or just read straight ahead if not needed.
A great representation of the correctness and beauty of functional programming and composition lies when you take what you need and don’t take what you don’t need which is something impossible to actually do with alternative paradigms.
The idea is that the system tree is informed, so we can either read just about the underlying topic of the article or expand within other related content as much as needed within an uncoupled (or composable) sum of highly-cohesive content that builds a greater whole.
As an intellectual, I always want to write about many contents I have in mind, but for any article, I’ve eventually resolved to write or talk about one topic and leave details or derivative topics that should/must be stated as a draft and then build other articles that will be probably related to each other but still being highly cohesive.
Now I’m pretty careful about off-topic that must go somewhere else.
Articles must be united wholes that are about the same content, so we can sum (scale) them up to build a greater system tree of high-quality content.
Homogeneous content allows me to achieve simplicity, so I don’t need to employ bureaucratic/academic stereotypes like heterogeneous sections that are literally called “Introduction”, “Body”, or “Conclusion” since I’m writing content as it was source code, and I leverage functional programming for making informed decisions every day.
All those boilerplate-based and off-topic sections are used to hold academic monoliths1 and if you’re clever enough, you must come out with your DSLs because you’re a domain expert completely able to provide actual value instead of off-topic academic and corporate marketing.
Such sections (for example) are clearly noticed as off-topic since your
article has a central topic
X and you’re not talking about “Introduction”, or
X. Those generic boilerplate-driven titles recalls us of cheap
Boilerplate-driven development is pretty common to see in cheap generic software out there, due to top-down template-based imposed/bureaucratic hierarchies.
It’s like: your app is about
Song-to-Text Recognition not about stupid
UseCase. You “sell”
“song recognition” and similar works, but you don’t “sell” “Controllers” and
such, so those generic buzzwords are stereotypes that bypass what an actual
engineer would do as a domain expert, so I expect modules called like say for
["song", "text", "transform", "control", "bass", "pitch",
"amplitude", "some-ml-model"] instead. Those modules depend on what you’re
particularly designing so if I tell you what modules to write it would be a
bureaucratic template (like OOD) instead of a DSL, hence DSLs are explicitly
called “specific” although in FP I would just call them “languages”.
Notice I’m not talking about “generic programming” here but generic ways that stereotype systems.
The only domain we can find that boilerplate is relatively correct to use is for prototypes or cheap software (like corporate apps) so the engineer has to decide whether to employ them sometimes.
When being homogeneous, in the example above, an API is the same kind of software a “business domain” is, a GUI tree is, or any module is. So there’s no need to differentiate among them and say that APIs have a “Controller” as a template. In other words, everything should be a domain, and this also applies to articles of course.
Articles are about the same idea, sometimes we need to think a bit more to write what has to be written instead of using generic templates and that endeavor leaves cheap articles behind and promotes high-quality content.
How I Homogenized My Previous Article
I’m writing this article as a milestone for the paradigm shift and the updates about content structure is pretty interesting.
I’ve always put the abstract at the beginning of my writings and made them as short as possible to resume the whole article.
Now notice how we normally would put sections for “Introduction”, “Conclusion”, etc., when writing formal or semiformal content. As said above, I don’t write about “Introduction” or “Body”, I’m not an “Introduction Engineer”, that is, those are stereotypes for generic/bureaucratic artifacts.
And bureaucrats enforce that kind of repetitive structure to be “correct” when in fact they don’t have an idea of what they’re talking about.
Content must be homogeneous to give all benefits of its value, homogeneity is key for pureness.
What I do is apply informed designs to systems, so I remove boilerplate2 and make them 💯 original as if were a huge universe set where every point is unique3, and we sum them up as a partition that induces the equivalence classes4 with the exact properties we need which leads to mathematical elegance and correctness as well as infinitely scalability.
I have to say I got quite excited with the previous paragraph 🤗 and it shows one more time how I’m fully capable of leading the mathematical software industry.
Now, notice how I got rid of the “Introduction” stereotype by moving smoothly over the sections as if they were functions with input and output that can obviously be composed, so I created a particular section that plays the traditional “Introduction” section but being domain-specific or well-informed instead of being generic: Hyphen and Pipe Symbols Semantics in File Names.
That section smoothly introduces the reader without imperatively saying it is an “Introduction” (can you see the beauty of FP and DSLs?).
Therefore, all sections can be composed together, and the reader only has to read what it’s needed and the content can be optimally displayed.
Also notice how all everything is homogeneous of course, so a section is the same as a whole article or the whole mathsoftware.engineer for me so that we can leverage this pureness to get the most out of the content. That also means that every section must have a micro abstract and conclusion to be smooth so the reader can move from one section to another or skip them.
Then, the “Conclusion” came, so I took all the inner sections (without abstract, title, and the conclusion itself) and resumed what a reader who already read the article has achieved (a.k.a. conclusion) and make it original: Standardize Hyphens and Pipes on File Names, noticing how I also micro resumed the section title itself to eradicate the “Conclusion” boilerplate.
Then, that is the output of the article that you can “plug” into the next article to get greater value and that also builds a rich well-informed system.
Check the Commits
See how I treated the domain-specific
as such. The commit messages go like
when it would normally be
Do not Use Plurals
As a rule of thumb don’t use plurals, I usually hate them as they represent stereotypes and are complicated. Go as simple as possible, and plurals are typically not simple at all!
One direct example of this for this topic is when they tell you to add to your work sections:
Back in the time after writing my B.Math thesis when I began to post content to mathsoftware.engineer I stopped writing in plurals and at least used the singular forms: “Objective”, and “Conclusion”.
When adding plurals you naturally write down a list of items next, so it means you skip actual content for generic items.
Plurals also indicate that section is merely off-topic just to comply with their low standards because you have to publish an “academic journal” that is a huge monolith no one is going to read. I mean, objectives, and recommendations, are contents that can be addressed anywhere else out there, and adding them into the same “PDF” only makes it a bigger bureaucratic top-down monolith.
How I Applied Cohesion to This Same Article
This is an example of how I applied what I’ve been developing in this article to this same article.
From my illustration, it’s easily readable to follow how I connected sections by concluding with the idea of the next section so content is smooth5, and it shows how it builds a greater whole out of composable and highly-cohesive sections as if they were functions.
If you notice, all these concepts are the same (homogeneity again!), for example, to be cohesive requires no off-topic to remove any fragmentation or impurity, so it can build an entire whole (as per cohesion definition). When removing impurities that fragment the whole into heterogeneous parts, we end up with a homogeneous whole. To compose they need not have impurities so be cohesive or homogeneous.
Also, notice how the unit of abstraction in FP is the function itself! while in alternative paradigms you have to come out with arbitrary (heterogeneous) workarounds.
Imagine if I talk about some off-topic then I wouldn’t be able to compose sections since if one only section is not able to build a united itself, then it’s even worse adding more together, they’re ending nowhere.
Detecting impurities introduce relativity but that’s another topic: Everything is Relative.
Recursive Fun Fact
The above image is from this same article, so it plays well with the content I developed, but I also wanted to add it to the section Cohesive which appears in the screenshot as well!
That would’ve been a recursive move but only possible if done programmatically as I’m not hacking into Photopea — a great and free version of Photoshop —.
Open Graph Cover
Lastly, I’ll mention the new template I created for the social media preview of the articles.
This is from my previous article, so for the record:
Source: Screenshot | Photopea (under fair use)
It contains the article title, the author image with the small and first6 version of MathSwe logo I created7 attached to the bottom-right, and icons8 for home, keywords, and reading time.
And then, here is the current cover for this article:
A further step is to automate all this of course 👾.
We Should Check Out the Pipe on the Home Value As Well
Notice how interesting is when I wrote about how I encode the pipe operator into file names in How I Standardized Hyphen and Pipe Symbols on File Names and I also applied the pipe to the first cover image for that article.
I’ve also applied the pipe to one of the images above too.
In this case, these articles are hosted at Blog | Math Software Engineer or the same, Blog | mathsoftware.engineer and that means that you’re reading the blog, so you see what kind of content to expect, and then it expands out to further details for the rest of the domain name.
Blog is a factual detail and then the pipe composes it to
build an entire and bigger whole altogether with the complete website.
is a subset of
mathsoftware.engineer (a subdomain technically), so this
way we see how FP goes from factual “small” truths to universal properties,
unlike alternative programming paradigms.
Also notice how reading is smooth as you can naturally do it from
top-to-bottom (I’m not talking about top-down structure but the position of your
“cursor”) within the same level of abstraction, and you can go further to
the right for granular detail. In other words, the pipe creates the effect
of either keeping “inside” or moving away to another domain when applying it,
like for example, in this case,
mathsoftware.engineer is a
I am Infinitely Thankful
Whenever I want to get knowledge or take decisions I only have to use my math and functional programming basis to infer a proper solution to each particular problem, in other words, I only have to think to get new knowledge and answers which is an in-house first-class representation of simplicity induced by math and FP.
Programming, engineering, math, philosophy, research, and others have systematically structured my brain all over the years.
Math, relativism, and functional programming have shifted my personal and professional life to the next dimension of consciousness, and they’re the ones whom I have to thank for everything I’ve built up and been able to understand since when you get to this level you are just capable to do whatever you want as an engineer.
In this article, I developed what I currently have as one of my milestones for mathsoftware.engineer and MathSwe content including last-days insights and thoughts based on my previous article.
Think why Java used to be overly verbose since 90’s and 00’s software (and hardware) were monstrous monoliths and Java was the excellent language for that era ↩
Boilerplate is proper of poorly-defined generic software like OO programs or also procedural Go programs ↩
All elements within a set are unique as the relation that defines whether an element \(x \in X\) is binary so \(x\) belongs or not to \(X\) and although \(x\) can be listed many times it is the same element ↩
Math or FP classes are not the same as OOP classes at all ↩
Smooth curves are my definition of beauty ↩
The first MathSwe logo is too tiny and doesn’t look well as a small icon, so I then created a main version which is bigger and much better and is displayed properly at any size but the reason I still don’t use it’s that I want to get it as a vector source code first, so I don’t have to take a huge amount of time (I’ve made a huge amount of efforts over the years, and it’s about time to automate and move forward now) fighting with manual graphic editing on Photopea for beauty details like the smooth curves and my perfectionist measurements ↩
I got influence from my earlier and original creations (Piaxid) for designing MathSwe of course ↩