Sorry it wasn't obvious what I was saying there... They're important because when they're tiny, it's very easy to learn them...
Julian On 08/05/2012, at 8:45 PM, Julian Leviston wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
