Stupid little iota of an idea

Andrei Alexandrescu SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
Sun Feb 13 04:59:52 PST 2011


On 2/13/11 3:15 AM, foobar wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't find the name "iota" stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Andrei
>>>
>>> Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it
>>> poorly named, including other developers in the project.. This is the
>>> umpteenth time this comes up in the NG and incidentally this is the
>>> only reason I know what the function does.
>>>
>>> If the users think the name is stupid than it really is. That's how
>>> usability works and the fact the you think otherwise or that it might
>>> be more accurate mathematically is really not relevant. If you want
>>> D/Phobos to be used by other people besides yourself you need to
>>> cater for their requirements.
>>
>> Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are
>> fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if
>> a better name for iota comes about.
>>
>> Andrei
>
> Usability seems to be Achilles' heel of D and is a recurrent theme on the NG. Usability cannot be mathematically deduced even though you seem to try hard to do just that.

I think it would be a bit of an exaggeration to characterize the choice 
of name "iota" as an impediment to usability. I'd agree if it were an 
endemic problem, but generally I think the choice of names in Phobos is 
adequate.

> This reminds me the story of a Google designer that quit the company,
> being frustrated by the engineering mind-set of the company. He gave
> many amusing examples of a complete lack of understanding of design
> principals such as choosing the shade of blue by doing a "scientific"
> comparison of a thousand different shades.

"Principles"!!! "Principles"!!! I hate that typo.

> could we for once put aside otherwise valid implementation concerns
> such as efficiency and mathematical correctness and treat usability
> as valid important concern? Could we for once accept that The users'
> opinion is not "fallacious" and have a user oriented design is not a
> bad thing or are we implementing for the sake of boosting ones own
> ego and nothing else?

I've already mentioned: I'm ready to change this name and others if 
consensus comes about. Generally efficiency and mathematical correctness 
don't clash badly with choice of names, so probably you're referring to 
something beyond that - just let us know.


Andrei


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list