@SolusSpider @tuxjam @kevie @mcnalu @thelovebug @mralc clearly @popey is the correct choice :-)

We have been discussing this. This would be a useful thing to ask your older relatives to see if anyone knows the answer rather than trying to think of ways to rationalise it, 'cos we've done that already :-) As Bruce says, there must _be_ a reason, even if it's lost to history now.
https://social.vivaldi.net/@brucelawson/112978700359700861

@mjg59 I think there's, as you say, an implicit assumption that "source code" is low-level enough that you can understand how the program does what it does. What your theoretical model does is undermine that idea, because the source code expresses a wish rather than an algorithm; there's no explanation of how it's accomplished, which historically people have always assumed that source code has to do. The model is more like a genie that brings you what you wish for; you're dependent on it.

@mjg59 this is a question of philosophy, I think. Is "be my ideal word processor" adequate source code? If you've got a compiler that can compile that correctly, yes. If you haven't, no. Is the Python source for that word processor adequate source code? I think yes even if you don't have a Python interpreter because you can see how it works, not just that it works. This feels like I'm talking myself into a different position than the one I intuitively thought.

@mjg59 assuming that either you also publish the instructions you gave for that binary so I can see them, or that "make a thing which does exactly what Matt Garrett's thing does" is an instruction I can give the model and get back software which is a clone of yours, then yes. Having the source code isn't the point; being able to make the changes I want and nobody being able to stop me from doing so is the point. If I have a magic wand, I don't need source code.

@mjg59 that is: the idea behind having the source is that if I want to change the program ten years from now, even if the compiler is not easily available, I can in theory also build that compiler from source, or write my own, and therefore I can still run the program. If the compiler (in this case, the model) isn't available and I also cannot create it because I don't know how it worked, then having the source code for the program isn't very helpful.

@mjg59 (this assumes that the model itself can't be taken away, of course. If it can be taken away or restricted in use in future, then I'm in two minds about whether this meets the goals of free software, because a year from now if I want to make changes to my or your software, I can't if I can no longer use the model.)

@mjg59 agreed entirely! and I'm in favour of that. But that's because it didn't really need to be; all previous compilable languages had the property that even if you didn't have the compiler, you could work out how the compiler *worked*, and therefore in a pinch could write your own. (A lot of work, but doable.) But with this, you don't know how to build the compiler, and the source code is not enough by itself to build the program.

@mjg59 I think if you know how to produce the model (or something equivalent to the model) then this is all fine, right? At that point, "make the word processor of my dreams" is perfectly adequate source code for a programme because you know how to make the compiler that can compile it; nobody can take that compiler away from you, so all is good. That's my intuition anyway!

It's Christmas day, here at least
Merry Christmas to all of you, whether you give a damn about Christmas or not.
To those of you alone on Christmas day and lonely because of it, I believe there are places to go ; Birmingham certainly has them. You are not obliged to be alone. I hope you find somewhere.
To those of you alone on Christmas day and ok with that : rock on. Do what you want. I'm super glad you're happy.
Happy holidays, all of you on Mastodon. I'm glad we're all here, together.