Bret Victor's point is why is this not also the approach we use for other topics, like engineering? There are many people who do not have a strong symbolic intuition, and so being able to tap into their (and our) other intuitions is a very powerful tool to increase efficiency of communication. More and more, I have found myself in this alternate philosophy of education and knowledge transmission. There are certainly limits—and text isn't going anywhere, but I think there's still a lot more to discover and try.

[1] https://dynamicland.org/2014/The_Humane_Representation_of_Th...

You can store everything as a string; base64 for binary, JSON for data, HTML for layout, CSS for styling, SQL for queries... Nothing gets closer to the mythical silver-bullet that developers have been chasing since the birth of the industry.

The holy grail of programming has been staring us in the face for decades and yet we still keep inventing new data structures and complex tools to transfer data... All to save like 30% bandwidth; an advantage which is almost fully cancelled out anyway after you GZIP the base64 string which most HTTP servers do automatically anyway.

Same story with ProtoBuf. All this complexity is added to make everything binary. For what goal? Did anyone ever ask this question? To save 20% bandwidth, which, again is an advantage lost after GZIP... For the negligible added CPU cost of deserialization, you completely lose human readability.

In this industry, there are tools and abstractions which are not given the respect they deserve and the humble string is definitely one of them.

I think the obsession with text comes down to two factors: conflating binary data with closed standards and poor tooling support. Text implies a baseline level of acceptable mediocrity for both. Consider a CSV file will millions of base64 encoded columns and no column labels. That would really not be any friendlier than a binary file with a openly documented format and suitable editing tool, e.g. sqlite.

Maybe a lack of fundamental technical skills is another culprit, but binary files really aren't that scary.

Our image models got good when we started making shared image and text embedding spaces. A picture is worth 1000 words, but 1000 words about millions of images are what allowed us to teach computers to see.

The inverse is also difficult. Pick a random 15 second movie clip, how to describe it using text without losing much of its essence? Or can one really port a random game into a text version? Can a pilot fly a plane with text-based instrument panel?

Text is not a superset of all communication media. They are just different.

I'm a linguist, and I've worked in endangered languages and in minority languages (many of which will some day become endangered, in the sense of not having native speakers). The advantage of plain text (Unicode) formats for documenting such languages (as opposed to binary formats like Word used to be, or databases, or even PDFs) is that text formats are the only thing that will stanmd the test of time. The article by Steven Bird and Gary Simons "Seven Dimensions of Portability for Language Documentation and Description" was the seminal paper on this topic, published in 2002. I've given later conference talks on the topic, pointing out that we can still read grammars of Greek and Latin (and Sanskrit) written thousands of years ago. And while the group I led published our grammars in paper form via PDF, we wrote and archived them as XML documents, which (along with JSON) are probably as reproducible a structured format as you can get. I'm hoping that 2000 years from now, someone will find these documents both readable and valuable.

There is of course no replacement for some binary format when it comes to audio.

(By "binary" format I mean file formats that are not sequential and readily interpretable, whereas text files are interpretable once you know the encoding.)

Reading “Mathematica - A secret world of intuition and curiosity” as well and a part stuck out in a section called The Language Trap. Example author gives is about for a recipe for making banana bread, that if you’re familiar with bananas, it’s obvious that you need to peel them before mashing. Bit of you haven’t seen a banana, you’d have no clue what to do. Does a recipe say peel a banana or should that be ignored? Questions like these are clear coming up more with AI and context, but it’s the same for humans. He ends that section saying most people prefer a video for cooking rather than a recipe.

Other quote from him:

“The language trap is the belief that naming things is enough to make them exist, and we can dispense with the effort of really imagining them.”

Anything below 3 is considered "partially illiterate".

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, as someone who cares about technical communication and making technical topics accessible to more people.

Maybe wannabe educators like myself should spend more time making content for TikTok or YouTube!

2021 (570 points, 339 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26164001

2015 (156 points, 69 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10284202

2014 (355 points, 196 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8451271

Minor nit: complex language (i.e. Zipf’s law) is the oldest and most stable communication technology.

Before text, we had oral story telling. It allowed us to communicate one generation’s knowledge to the next, and so on.

Arguably this is present elsewhere in the animal kingdom (orcas, elephants, etc.), but human language proves to be the most complex.

Side note: one of my favorite examples is from the Gunditjmara (a group of Aboriginal Australians) who recall a volcanic eruption from 30k+ years ago [0].

Written language (i.e. text) is unique, in that it allows information to pass across multiple generations, without a man-in-the-middle telephone-like game of storytelling.

But both are similar, text requires you to read, in your own voice, the thoughts of another. Storytelling requires you to hear a story, and then communicate it to others.

In either case, the person is required to retell the knowledge, either as an internal monologue or as an external broadcast.

Always bet on language.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budj_Bim

The image is of a monochrome logo with anti-aliased edges. Due to being a simple filled geometric shape, it could compress well with RLE, ZIP compression, or even predictors. It could even be represented as vector drawing commands (LineTo, CurveTo, etc...).

In a 1-bit-per-pixel format, a 20x20 image ends up as 400 bits (50 bytes).

And what comes to original article, there is no "text [systems]" (or there is, like there are "number [systems]", just made up). "Text" like this very thing you are reading is 2D drawing. There are no character glyphs of any kind (latin, logograms etc.) defined by universe*, they are human invented and stored/interpreted at human collective level. Computers don't know anything about text, only "numbers" of some bit width, and with those numbers a system must be created that can map some number representation to some drawing in some method (e.g. with bitmap). Also there is a lot of difference between formal/executable and natural human languages. Anyways, it's not a about some text format/encoding, it's the human/computer defined/interpreted non-linguistical meaning behind it (Wittgenstein).

* DNA/RNA can be one such "universal character glyph/string", as the "textual" information is physically constructed and interpreted.

But I can't help feel that we try to jam everything into that format because that's what's already ubiquitous. Reminds me of how every hobby OS is a copy of some Unix/Posix system.

If we had a more general structured format would we say the opposite?

- I want to learn how to climb rock walls

- I want to learn how to throw a baseball

- I want to learn how to do public speaking

- I want to learn how to play piano

- I want to make a fire in the woods

- I want to understand the emotional impact of war

- I want to be involved in my child's life

This reads like someone who got really excited about a subject but only ever learned to communicate in breathless "Ford vs. Chevy" kid-argument style.

We all like text here. Stop selling.

Edit: clarifications

https://youtu.be/WgV6M1LyfNY?si=AavUO_aNuvSlJ0a5

Tools that are mostly text or have text interfaces? Greatly improved by LLM.

So all of those rich multimedia and their players/editors really need to add text representations.

It is amazing what we can do with a few strings of symbols, thanks to the fact that we all learn to decode them almost for free.

The oldest and most important technology indeed.

It's almost like some people think human-readability, transparency and maintainability are negatives!

Videos, podcasts... I have them transcribed because even though I like listening to music, podcasts are best written for speed of comprehension... (at least for me, I don't know about others).

But would be foolish to live your life through it.

Don't confuse the map with the territory.

Explore the territory. Not the map.

Unless your job requires building or maintaining the map.

Text will win, unless there is a lower effort option. The lower effort option does not need to be better, just easier.

Human sensory system has an evolved processing ability for visual and audio content. A story can give different sensory data and feelings to different receivers. It is a low-fidelity transmission.

Try telling someone how an old folk song sounded or how some exotic fruit tasted, or how some wild flower smelled, or how some surreal game scene looked, using only text.

That's completely false: Images were used for storytelling thousands of years before text (compare for instance the Lascaux paintings which are more than 17 000 years old, the Göbeklitepe sculptures and stone drawings (more than 12 000 years old), or the the more than 15 000 paintings of the City of Sefar (Algeria) which some estimate to date back as far as 20 000 years ago to the earliest text known in human history, Kish Tablet, Mesopotamia, around 3500 years old.

The 1% where something else is better?

Youtube videos that show you how to access hidden fasteners on things you want to take apart.

Not that I can't get absolutely anything open, but sometimes it's nice to be able to do so with minimal damage.

white on dark grey with phosphor green around? not really.

PS: 2014

Excerpts where he explains: "Now this was technically a fault in the application (Word 6.0 for the Macintosh) not the operating system (MacOS 7 point something) and so the initial target of my annoyance was the people who were responsible for Word. But. On the other hand, I could have chosen the "save as text" option in Word and saved all of my documents as simple telegrams, and this problem would not have arisen. Instead I had allowed myself to be seduced by all of those flashy formatting options that hadn't even existed until GUIs had come along to make them practicable. I had gotten into the habit of using them to make my documents look pretty (perhaps prettier than they deserved to look; all of the old documents on those floppies turned out to be more or less crap). Now I was paying the price for that self-indulgence. Technology had moved on and found ways to make my documents look even prettier, and the consequence of it was that all old ugly documents had ceased to exist."

and

"When my Powerbook broke my heart, and when Word stopped recognizing my old files, I jumped to Unix. The obvious alternative to MacOS would have been Windows. I didn't really have anything against Microsoft, or Windows. But it was pretty obvious, now, that old PC operating systems were overreaching, and showing the strain, and, perhaps, were best avoided until they had learned to walk and chew gum at the same time.

The changeover took place on a particular day in the summer of 1995. I had been San Francisco for a couple of weeks, using my PowerBook to work on a document. The document was too big to fit onto a single floppy, and so I hadn't made a backup since leaving home. The PowerBook crashed and wiped out the entire file.

It happened just as I was on my way out the door to visit a company called Electric Communities, which in those days was in Los Altos. I took my PowerBook with me. My friends at Electric Communities were Mac users who had all sorts of utility software for unerasing files and recovering from disk crashes, and I was certain I could get most of the file back.

As it turned out, two different Mac crash recovery utilities were unable to find any trace that my file had ever existed. It was completely and systematically wiped out. We went through that hard disk block by block and found disjointed fragments of countless old, discarded, forgotten files, but none of what I wanted. The metaphor shear was especially brutal that day. It was sort of like watching the girl you've been in love with for ten years get killed in a car wreck, and then attending her autopsy, and learning that underneath the clothes and makeup she was just flesh and blood."

Reminds me of when HN thread comments about articles pertaining to the negative aspects of web advertising refer to the publisher's, e.g. a newspaper website's, use of web advertising, e.g., ad auctions, trackers, etc., as a point of significance

Would arguments against text be more convincing if made using something other than text

Is it appropriate to use text to make an argument against text. If yes, then why

I TOTALLY disagree on terminal being the best way

Even the text tablet shown is using 2D surface in its full ability - we need to strive to bring that as well

(for those who didn't catch the joke: binary log file format)

It might be a good bet to bet on text, but it feels inefficient a lot of the time, especially in cases like this where all sorts of files are stored in JSON documents.

1: https://gist.github.com/simonw/007c628ceb84d0da0795b57af7b74...

2: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Dec/26/slop-acts-of-kindness/

I completely disagree, if LLMs have taught us anything it's that the semantic space is MASSIVE and has far too many dimensions to visualize. Of course for some specific situations visualizations are great and can give you almost immediate insight, but for truly complex problems the only ability we have as humans that lets humans understand complex relationships is language

Now language can be visual, textual or auditory. But at the end of the day it must be a language. Music notation isn't a language, it's a very simple set of semantics splayed out in a standard way, when people try to increase the semantic density it turns comical, also there is very little contextual relationship between the semantic markings (key affects notes and ties affect notes but key never affects ties). Whereas a programming language can have entire scores a single identifier. Many people have a shared, somewhat lossy understanding of unreal whether they worked with it, played a game with it or whatever, one that can include a lot more than just the code.