Kirill Orlov: I would prefer very quiet conditions—less light, no sound. When I do intellectual work, I can’t endure office noise. That’s why I prefer to work remotely, and my employers know that is my style. I don’t like distractions, but I do take breaks. I go to the kitchen and have tea or coffee. Sometimes I drink the tea in the kitchen and sometimes I take the glass to my computer. There is a spotlight in my lamp where I sit so that my surroundings are in shadow. This is necessary to be attentive.

When I attack a problem at first, I must sit down and have a type of meditation first. Or go have this meditation in shower or in bed: the body must be relaxed. This is time when you can insert your shoulder in the doorway. If you think that you can insert half your body in the doorway, then you’ll get through, surely. This is a critical time. When it comes to detail, then I sit down before a computer and I’m very attentive.

King Douglas: When solving problems in SPSS, what makes a problem difficult?

Kirill Orlov: The main problem that makes other problems difficult is when you have no motivation to work on the problem. Money is not the usual motivation for me. I don’t know why. If you must do [something] because it is for money or because you said that you will do it for somebody, you don’t feel freedom. I like to feel freedom inside me. But living in freedom means either knowing secrets of reviving inspiration (and I’m not an exorcist) or being cold to defy inspiration (and I’m not a robot). I still don’t know which way to go.

King Douglas: Describe the way in which you attack a difficult problem. Do you work with pencil and paper first? Stare at the wall or ceiling? Work directly in the syntax editor?

Kirill Orlov: [Smiling] You want me to describe my kitchen? I really do use paper and pencil. I draw pictures, structure of data, variables, cases, matrices. Then when I have a general idea of how to solve the problem, if the problem is difficult, I first write its logic in natural language [pseudo code]…because it helps to understand the problem in whole. If the problem is difficult, I never use syntax statements at once. I write something between the description of a solution and the code itself.

King Douglas: Many problems can be solved in a variety of ways. Do you value parsimonious code and work to attain it? Or is parsimony irrelevant, given that a computer is going to do the work?

Kirill Orlov: It depends on what you mean by parsimonious. Fewer lines of code? Or faster running? Usually parsimonious code and PC speed coincide, but not always. Sometimes code with more lines will run in less time.

But aesthetically there is a difference. I like my syntax to be shapely and not long. Because I am not an artist, I must try to achieve some creativity in what I am doing—and I am doing syntax. Parsimony is one of the key points for me. When I prepare a macro for long-term use and I am planning to show it on my web page, I often try the macro for its speed. I may have two or three versions and compare them for their speed.

The practical difference between parsimonious code and not parsimonious code is not very strong because computers are strong. But I cannot stand not-parsimonious syntax unless it is an ad-hoc one, just for today.

King Douglas: Speaking of parsimonious SPSS syntax, have you ever seen a solution to a problem that you thought was particularly elegant, poetic or beautiful?

Kirill Orlov: I have seen several of Raynald’s codes that were beautiful, really great--like etudes to express and to teach others. Unlike my macros which serve as commands that are absent in SPSS.