On Tuesday 02 August 2011 00:43:57 BGB wrote: > 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...
I agree with the point that humans cannot be assumed to have a hard-wired intuition, based on Physics or otherwise. I suppose my intended meaning would be better expressed as "consistent", ie. intuition gained from using feature A will be a reasonable approach to using feature B. A simple example where this is the case is iterable objects, eg. in Python "for a in b:". Experience of basic objects such as lists and strings carries over quite straightforwardly to, for example, XML parsing. An example where this isn't the case is multithreaded programming (eg. in Python, Java, etc.). The language looks and feels like it does when non- threaded code is being written, but under the hood all sorts of assumptions are being violated in an incredibly non-obvious way. Regards, Chris _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
