Andrew Dalke +1
From the Xanadu website describing a data structure:
"The crum table shows how the rearrangement is enacted within a buffer containing and identifying the crums. A numeral is associated with each crum, showing its level in the tree structure of the enfilade, thus modelling a subrepresentation of the whole structure. The lowest-level crums (level 4) point to string data. WIDs are not shown.
In this map, the three-cut rearrangement of the previous illustration is mapped into its constituent operations on the crum pointers. The â¢â symbol indicates a cut to be made in the crum, specfically to crums K, H, M and N, which we see propagated up to the highest necessary level. A rearrangement of the crums (and sending the crum table to mass storage) completes the rearrangement of the text below.
The first two rows of the illustration identify the crums of a subrepresentation of the enfilade, starting with D, a crum at level 2. Passing rightward, six crums are omitted from the map; then F, a level 3 crum (not involved) and G, a level 3 crum, where the work begins. Below G are 14 level-4 crums (omitted), then K, a level-4 crum involved in the operation, and its succesor L, not involved. We see H, a third-level crum involved in the rearrangement, above M; four other crums are not shown, N (involved in the operation), and then other crum-counts of crums which are omitted.
In the third level of the diagram, showing only a part of the table, we see the cuts propagate to the bottom level as the rearrangement is consummated. Sections of crums are exchanged, after which the â¢â symbols may be removed from the crum table.
To enact the operation, K, M and N are cut. In the method illustrated here, the â¢â sign is used as an actual marker in the crum table. Crum K is replaced by crum K1, the â¢â sign and crum K2. Crum M is replaced by Crum M1, the â¢â sign and crum M2; crum N is replaced crum N1, the â¢â sign and crum N2."
Seriously, what does this remind you ofâŚhave you ever read any of the Scientology manuals?
There has always been this thing where people make up new names for things that already exist when they are convinced that their ideas are so mind blowing that existing language cannot adequately suffice.
Andrew Dalke +1
@Matt - So glad you referenced RUSH!
âI had heard the whispered tales of immortalityâŚâ
the rest of you can complain, but I am just happy there is a new post⌠I think Codinghorror.com is in my history several times a day for the past 2 weeksâŚ
Plus, I didnât know anything about this.
I always wanted to hear Olivia Newton-John sing Rushâs Xanadu. Or, vice-versaâŚ
@Joseph Crotty
Tell you what, you prove that God exists and weâll start listening to the virgin shut-ins you profess to have wisdom.
You donât KNOW, for instance, that Vishnu doesnât exist (you HOPE that he doesnât exist), but I doubt you spend any time reading the opinions of Hindu religious readers.
I prefer a reality that is only 20% (yes! even the short side of Paretoâs principle) functional that a perfect dream that never fails, because we live in the real world, and not at the other side of the mirror.
Ship first, improve and debug later!
You mean by linking to it perhaps? I think itâs clear it was inspired by Dareâs blog by the fact he links to the very blog entry youâre complaining about.
Hallelujah! You have written a post, finally when you have been silent for so long.
I like the anarchistic and obnoxious programmer - Iâm little like that! And who said like that: "He tells loudly that he knows a half-dozen programming languages and doesnât shy about that either. He walks around like heâs freakinâ James Bond."
Let us fellow programmerâs be like James Bond!!!
I think it is much more than âAlways remember that shipping is a feature.â.
Shipping is a feature implies that Ted just wanted to get the thing to a âperfectâ state before he releases it. And that if he didnât mind releasing something with a few bugs then Xanadu were a huge success.
I think the fundamental problem here is not that of striving for perfection. Let me explain.
At the very heart of Xanadu lies a âwhole world knowledgeâ assumption. I mean, in order to be ensure that all links are viable (no broken links) you must be able to know, at any point in time, the exact set of all documents in the system. This assumption is at odds with allowing every user to add/change/delete documents.
Assuming a whole world knowledge at modern (large enough) information system is usually a false assumption. For instance, you canât know the exact number of purchases that were made at WallMart today because this means stopping the system and counting some records in some DB table.
Xanadu is based on this assumption. Thus it was doomed to fail.
I love the web in its current miserable state. Link rot, free access, scattered identity management and anonymous access I consider features, given the alternative. Without these features the web would not be where it is. So yes, worse is better in this case.
I think itâs worth considering that monoculture (that is, the ubiquity portrayed by a concept like Xanadu) hinders development (in the broad sense, if not the software sense per se). The reason we have, say, Google Maps is not just because Mapquest wasnât good enough, but because it wasnât the map application designate of the Internet. It was the de facto dominant platform in that space, but lacking imposed ubiquity, those with better ideas were free to produce and publish those ideas.
And while this example obviously could be shoehorned into the Xanadu concept, other more fundamental examples could not: those used for identification, for instance. While having a single login for the web may have its perks, it also has its limits. I value being able to identify myself differently for different purposes on the web, personally. I donât like the idea of my identity for discussing politics being mixed up with my identity for job hunting. In a sense, the Xanadu concept presents a pseudo-voluntary Big Brother enrollment platform. Given that alternative, Iâd much prefer to enter whatever name I choose and answer some CAPTCHA challenge (here), or login credentials (where I store sensitive data), or no identifying information whatever (where I discuss anything I consider controversial and potentially exposing me to undue danger).
Interesting⌠Maybe Google wave will work out after all
The web is fine⌠Ted wanted 2 way links and he didnât get them because itâs a shit idea - you can achieve 2 way links as the web is now by checking the Referrer header of clients accessing your pages - so by not enforcing 2 way links you GAIN the flexibility of not having to couple the linker and the linkee. Tedâs a bell-end.
Iâm sorry Jeff, but moaning about the most intricate socially enabling system on the planet EVER, is pretty rich. Donât give up your day job.
YOU SUCK !
âThere is almost no reliable centralized form of identity on the internetâŚâ
I think youâll find there are many people who consider that a good thing.
@someone you know: Yes, and thanks to the work of the great and mythical John Gabriel, we know what kind of people they are: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
ignorance, stupidity, and communication failures,
Many people know they are ignorant and stupid.
But they will never change that, because they live well enough this way.
Itâs naive to believe you could change the world by giving people the chance to learn - they simply ignore it 
Learning costs time and money, and it is stressful - easy fun is more enjoyable.
I have this picture of worldwide MS SharePoint replacing the www going through my head. Ouch.
Holy crap, 1960? Wow, that makes Duke Nukem Forever look like a drop in the bucket in comparison.