Re: [ppig-discuss] Rhetorical structure of code: Anyone interested in collaborating?

> No doubt it could be construed as either-or rather than both-and. Having > relevant media to support professional development is necessary. However, it > seems rather too easy to end up with a cultural reduction toward the > technological means rather than the ends (and thus we end up

Re: [ppig-discuss] Rhetorical structure of code: Anyone interested in collaborating?

Hi Raoul, No doubt it could be construed as either-or rather than both-and. Having relevant media to support professional development is necessary. However, it seems rather too easy to end up with a cultural reduction toward the technological means rather than the ends (and thus we end up

Re: [ppig-discuss] Rhetorical structure of code: Anyone interested in collaborating?

> > To me, a 1000-line module is a God Class. A 3000-line module is a complete >> disaster. >> >> Accepted best practice is that a file too big to view on your screen is >> too long. Optimum file size is probably under 30 lines. >> > Really? I've heard that said about *function* size, but not

Re: [ppig-discuss] Rhetorical structure of code: Anyone interested in collaborating?

On 28/04/16 7:15 PM, Dan Sumption wrote: This is a subject that interests me greatly, and I'm keen to hear people's views on it. My perspective is that of a working software developer (albeit with a background in psychology), not an academic. I have no experience of ML, and have worked

Re: [ppig-discuss] Rhetorical structure of code: Anyone interested in collaborating?

I'm still a practitioner, to the extent a consultant can be. Visualations need to be derived from the code and not the annotations since I've never met a programmer who voluntary updated their JavaDoc or other annotation. I've seen literate code on rare occasions, mostly from teams doing

Re: [ppig-discuss] Rhetorical structure of code: Anyone interested in collaborating?

I am not sure if it matters for you but how about Standard ML modules? - Gergely On Thursday, 28 April 2016, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote: > I've been thinking for some time of writing a paper with the > title "Why can't I see the structure?" based on the idea that > modules