Naming poses no problem so long as you define things a bit. :P Humans parsing documents without proper definitions are like coders trying to read programming languages that have no comments
(pretty much all the source code I ever read unfortunately) J On 08/05/2012, at 4:36 PM, David Barbour wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Clinton Daniel <[email protected]> > wrote: > The other side of that coin is burdening users with a bunch of new > terms to learn that don't link to existing human concepts and words. > "Click to save the document" is easier for a new user to grok than > "Flarg to flep the floggle" ;) > > Seriously though, in the space of programming language design, there > is a trade-off in terms of quickly conveying a concept via reusing a > term, versus coining a new term to reduce the impedance mismatch that > occurs when the concept doesn't have exactly the same properties as an > existing term. > > Yeah. I've had trouble with this balance before. We need to acknowledge the > path dependence in human understanding. > > My impression: it's connotation, more than denotation, that interferes with > human understanding. > > "Naming is two-way: a strong name changes the meaning of a thing, and a > strong thing changes the meaning of a name." - Harrison Ainsworth (@hxa7241) > > Regards, > > Dave > > -- > bringing s-words to a pen fight > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
