This is why tiny languages (Alan calls them POLs, I believe: problem-oriented-languages) are so important.
A language being anything that involves "communication"... including user interface interaction. Julian On 08/05/2012, at 8:07 PM, Clinton Daniel wrote: > I suppose my point is that for new users, the analogies formed by > reusing existing terms are uncertain in that you don't know which > parts of the analogy carry across to the concept in question. Once > you're familiar with the concept itself, you know which parts apply > and which don't, but the point of reusing terms in the first place is > to help in learning the concept. > > If you invent a new term, you don't get the problem of inferring > properties that don't carry across (or missing properties that aren't > analogous), but you burden new users with finding analogies > themselves. > > In the end I agree that people are the problem, but I think we should > make things as easy as possible to learn by using analogies where > appropriate and inventing new terms where analogies would be > counter-productive. Where that line rests, however, is much of what > makes the issue difficult. > > Clinton > > > On 8 May 2012 16:13, Julian Leviston <[email protected]> wrote: >> I disagree. We do our best. This is always the case. >> >> The problem with language is ... there is no problem. The "problem" is with >> people and their lack of awareness. >> >> I agree that "our best" currently sucks, though. >> >> Words aren't the things they refer to - they're just pointers. The only way >> to precisely use language is to realise that it's not precise, and therefore >> stipulate DSLs. >> >> What's your point? >> >> Julian >> >> >> On 08/05/2012, at 4:07 PM, Clinton Daniel 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. >>> >>> Clinton >>> >>> >>> On 8 May 2012 00:14, John Pratt <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> The problem with programming languages and computers in general is that >>>> they hijack existing human concepts and words, usurping them from everyday >>>> usage and flattening out their meanings. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> fonc mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >>> _______________________________________________ >>> fonc mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
