By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 05:02:23 +0000

This reminds me a little of Ramsay's On Building which defines DH as building things. Procedural literacy, or Vee's proceduracy, has been a hot topic and I know of several writers including Kirschenbaum (Hello Worlds) that have advocated for programming languages in the humanities. For my part, I am a hacker that believes that more C++ or php would have been better for me than Spanish, but I also understand the hesitation in departments to grant credits for computer languages. In 30 years, php may be as relevant as FORTRAN. Still, Ramsay argues, as I believe you are here, that the value of programming is in the mental work of the procedural creation. To build something is to model it (what Bogost might call understanding and designing procedural rhetoric). A similar rhetoric exists in the architecture of language, the differance of linguistic signs which I believe is more often valuable for students of English. Maybe I'm old school, but I believe foreign languages teach us more about English than computer languages. The problem has a great deal to do with mentoring and standards within English departments as well. How does one prove proficiency in an environment where English professors don't code? Where does "hacking" become "building"? Where do courses allow for the "essay" to meet the "program"?

By: N B

N B — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:06:05 +0000

why has the contradiction become for the sake of it–hacking computers or networks is just another utility in which you practice the philosophical art of contradiction

benefits vs benefits
the second benefit is encoded
or the first
or both

Comments on: Bildung and Building: Hacking (and) the Foreign Language Requirement

By: Nathan

By: N B