On 8/1/2011 3:24 PM, Simon Forman wrote:
On 7/27/11, Chris Warburton<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
(maybe relevant but no really to comment).
Another reason I would argue against something like types based on
Physics is that Physics tries to work out the inconceivable ways that
the Universe actually behaves by systematically throwing away all of our
intuitions that turn out to be wrong. With a computer system, we want
the opposite; we want a system that requires as little study as
possible, and for which our intuitions are accurate.
I respectfully disagree.
Jef Raskin pointed out that humans have no innate intuition regarding
computer systems, only familiarity. The word "intuitive" in reference
to computer languages and UIs is incorrect.
We want a computer system that allows us to specify our guesses
(intuitions) about the world concretely and communicate them and test
them, but that does so without unduly getting in our way.
I think that creating computer systems that support naive or unfounded
"intuitions" (whether about how computers work or about the world
outside the computer system) actually does a disservice.
yep, "intuitive" is itself often ill-defined.
usually, it is used in reference to one of several ideas:
it is conventional, so it is "intuitive" in that most of its aspects are
common with other similar systems (like, say, a language looks about
like C++ or Java, so people have a good idea what it will do without
really knowing the language in particular);
it follows conventions from somewhere else, usually related to the
domain in which it is being applied (it is "intuitive" in that it is
similar to what the users are likely to expect in their domain);
it strives for being "intuitive" in the sense of "intuitively
understood", which generally boils down to striving for minimalism and
high level of orthogonality (this is sometimes used to argue the merit
of languages like Forth and Factor).
sometimes things are "intuitive" but in unusual ways ("out in left
field"), usually more when "intuitive" is used more in the sense of
"being creative", or having a distinctive "flare" or "style".
in some sense, these are relevant goals, but none are "intuitive"
per-se, and could often just as easily be defined as "well, it is
similar to these other things in these particular ways, and differs from
them in these other ways".
but, then for whatever reason there is a cultural bias against admitting
that ones' "original works" are actually just created more like a jigsaw
puzzle of bits and pieces of ideas from other works.
but, sometimes, it is not about how original the pieces themselves are,
but if they can be put together in interesting ways to deliver a product
which is both "unique" and "original", but also matches reasonably well
with peoples' expectations as to what the product should be (all of the
parts should fit together into a cohesive whole, appearing neither as a
mishmash or as something strange and alien, ...).
or such...
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
