Stupid little iota of an idea

foobar foo at bar.com
Sun Feb 13 08:02:20 PST 2011


Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

> 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.
> 

It's not just a one time thing with one function name. There is a reoccurring pattern with function names and other such aspects and it doesn't need to be endemic in order to be looked at and improved. 
 
It's not just the naming (which I don't think is adequate), it's other things too such as the organization & categorization of the code in Phobos, the web-site (already being worked on), the tool-chain could be improved, etc. 
I'm mostly complaining about the parts where there is little to no improvements. 

> > 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.

Excuse me but I'm not a native English speaker and the spell check missed that. 

> 
> > 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