<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>IRhetoric - Karsten Januszewski   : Philosophy</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/karstenj/archive/tags/Philosophy/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: Philosophy</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>"Caught up in a system of references" -- More on Post-Structural Programming</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/karstenj/archive/2005/11/15/493276.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:39:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:493276</guid><dc:creator>karstenj</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>http://blogs.msdn.com/karstenj/comments/493276.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.msdn.com/karstenj/commentrss.aspx?PostID=493276</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;P&gt;I encountered another pertinant passage related to programming in Chapter 1 of &lt;EM&gt;The Archeology of Knowledge&lt;/EM&gt; (1969) by Michel Foucault.&amp;nbsp; In this chapter, entitled "The Unities of Discourse," he sets out to challenge a host of assumptions.&amp;nbsp; These assumptions, or "unities" as he calls them,&amp;nbsp;are deeply ingrained in most projects of critical analysis.&amp;nbsp; One unity he finds particularly pernicious is that of "the book".&amp;nbsp; On the surface, how could one have issue with something as seemingly concrete as a book?&amp;nbsp; But he starts to unravel the purity of a book, in that a book does not exist in a vacuum; it only makes sense in context with other books, with what we have read before.&amp;nbsp; He says, "The frontiers of a book are never clear-cut: beyond the title, the first lines, and the last full stop, beyond its internal configuration and its autonomous form, it is caught up in a system of references to other books, other texts, other sentences: it is a node within a network."&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It was this sentence that struck me as related to programming.&amp;nbsp; Terms like "configuration," "network," and "node" veritably scream out as related to computers.&amp;nbsp; The obvious metaphor of networks and nodes is to actual networks, but I thought of the idea as more related to code.&amp;nbsp; Really, no code exists in isolation.&amp;nbsp; It always pulls in base classes&amp;nbsp;from whatever platform the code is written on, and those base classes have some dependency, etc.&amp;nbsp; All code is "caught up in a system of references" -- in .NET, literally caught up in System.&amp;nbsp;And this idea of internal configuration: these are the programming patterns that we claim to&amp;nbsp;implement.&amp;nbsp; But what is the sub-text of a piece of code?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=493276" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.msdn.com/karstenj/archive/tags/Philosophy/default.aspx">Philosophy</category></item></channel></rss>