I'm having a hard time following the through line on these first principles. Likely it's just a "me" problem because I have status quo system designs set in my head, but here are some ideas that seem conflicting to me:

> Hardware and software must be designed as one

In here, they describe an issue with computers is how they use layers of abstraction, and that actually hides complexity. But...

> Computers should feel like magic

I'm not sure how the authors think "magic" happens, but it's not through simplicity. Early computers were quite simple, but I can guarantee most modern users would not think they were magical to use. Of course, this also conflicts with the idea that...

> Systems must be tractable

Why would a user need to know how every aspect of a computer works if they're "magic" and "just work"?

Anyway, I'm really trying not to be cynical here. This just feels like a list written by someone who doesn't really understand how computers or software came to work the way they do.

▲

iansteyn 17 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah I felt the contradictions here too. Doesn’t the feeling of “magic” directly proceed from abstraction and non-tractability (or at least, as you say, not needing to understand every part of the system)?

▲

glenstein 16 hours ago | parent [-]

>Doesn’t the feeling of “magic” directly proceed from abstraction and non-tractability

Yes, but also I think it can also have a kind of liminal impression of an internal logic.

▲

iansteyn 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Would you mind elaborating?

	▲	glenstein 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I agree that the "magic" feeling involves abstraction from nuts and bolts, but a kind of notable responsiveness to, say, preferred trains of thought that are optimal for a workflow or project management or for rich functional interaction. I use the word "liminal" in the sense of the aesthetic term "liminal spaces" to indicate a presence of a kind of lightweight logic not necessarily fully articulated.