[theqabalist]

The argument is not to design systems as stories, but to leverage the psychosocial technology of story to inform both design decisions and discussion such that you do not need to be a mathematician in order to contribute. Your system is not going to read like the story. The story is allegorical. But designing the system like the story allows you to outsource design decisions to people who can reason about the rhetorical questions at the end rather than having to reason in a domain that is extremely exclusive, like higher order mathematics.

[Nasrudith]

We have tried that already - it has worked horribly. Dumbing things down to the level that algorithm is treated as a swear word doesn't make easier to maintain code. It does the opposite and begets abominations like excel sheet flat table databases thousands of lines long and inconsistently formatted /for accounting/. And to add insult to injury if they master it then their growth is likely to wind up hindered. Besides it isn't the best or even the cheapest way to produce more. Has anyone read or even heard the concept of the "Mythical Man Month"?

The idea is dangerously wrongheaded in many other ways. Those hard concepts aren't for the sake of some hierarchical clubhouse but because they are fundamental at worst and at best would take real intellectual labor to remove and reduce to something simpler without creating other problems.

Frankly we need to abandon this anti-intellectual fantasy that we can all be spared the hard work of learning by utilizing the uninitiated masses. It is wishful thinking run amok. Gather their input, figure out how they do things already, explain it in whatever way, sure. But trying to get them to do it without serious training to make them the "old" elite will end in tears.