I've always believed knitting pattern design is programming.
People who can decompile a jumper into its instruction set amaze me. Some of them can adjust the parameter stack on the fly to fix errors, or tailor the fit, or cope with changes in the wool.
It is estimated that 200,000 to 500,000 punch cards were necessary to encode the pages, at 160 threads per cm (400 threads per inch).
A rough calculation from the pagecount and dimensions gives approximately 40MB of bitmap data for each page, or 80-200 bytes (640-1600 bits) per punched card.
That's where you make a hotfix without restarting. When you really understand the structure of knitting, it can be very fulfilling to come up with ways to fix "bugs" like this. Drop down a row or three to redo just that stitch, use twisted stitches to tighten up loose stitches, or even cut the yarn and graft in a patch when you need to add extra material.
Teaching myself computer programming when I was in elementary school helped me understand that everything can be broken down into discrete steps and decisions. Anything can be programming, some things more obviously so. I've found it helpful in every job I've had, technical or not.
> I've always believed knitting pattern design is programming.
In what sense? My dad is a blacksmith, and his ability to intuitively asses material requirements, adjust designs to make them feasible, and decompose shapes, far surpasses mine.
I guess it's hard for me to see what makes knitting designs any more like programming than any other craft. I'd think that an essential part of programming is exactly that the computer can't "adjust the parameters".
The programming would be writing the knitting pattern. Not executing it.
How many knitters write knitting patterns? How many know how to algorithmically modify a pattern to suit their body type?
I used to teach computing at night school in the 1980s and as a metaphor it was remarkably useful for motivation with older women who were in an "I can't do this" frame of mind. Pointing out that if they did any design work in knitting or crochet, or at least could understand how to modify a complex pattern e.g. around a neckline, or cabling, they were already "doing it"
A jacquard loom is for weaving. Knitting machines are very programmable.
> How many know how to algorithmically modify a pattern to suit their body type?
I would assume most do. Most knitting patterns I see are parametric over a range of sizes and the author assumes the reader can apply the parameters correctly for the size they want. It usually looks something like:
"This hat can be knit small (medium, large). Cast on 84 (96, 104) stitches..."
So the "small (medium, large)" part tells you the pattern is parameterized over size which can be one of three values. Then whenever you see a value like "84 (96, 104)", you pick the first if you want small, the second for medium, or the third for large.
(As a language designer, I confess I don't like the syntax for this, but it seems pretty standard.)
I am a programmer, and I crochet. It never occurred to me to think of a pattern that way. I now sorta see it. Maybe knitting is different enough from crocheting that the link is more obvious.
People who can decompile a jumper into its instruction set amaze me. Some of them can adjust the parameter stack on the fly to fix errors, or tailor the fit, or cope with changes in the wool.