![]() There is a real world example of a complex, critical, domain that has followed this approach religiously for years: prescription drugs. Cuteness is how children bargain with nature, and in a corporate environment that is about the livelihoods of adults, it is a liability. Whimsy is cute initially, but it quickly becomes uncanny, and even repulsive to see adults acting careless. #Receiptbox error on mac codeI'm on the other side of this, as the author is advocating for using code words to compartmentalize infrastructure, which I think creates absurd bureaucratization and incentivises information hoarding, gatekeeping, and a bunch of other organizational antipatterns.īusiness owners and product managers tolerate the whimsy when systems work, but then suddenly when you can't make a feature commitment to a customer on whose relationship your business growth depends - because of the tech debt you accumulated by not priortizing UnicornPoo in your engineering roadmap, you realize your engineering team has essentially betrayed your organization so that they could be lazy and focus on science projects, and the code names were to obfuscate their commitments, and as an expression of spite and contempt for the people they took money from. Of course, it's not always true, but humans are voracious pattern matchers and will create an association at the slightest hint of correlation. Once you experience enough of those, you subconsciously develop an association that "boring obvious name" equals "crappy API and weird behavior" while "weird random name" signals "nice modern API and coherent semantics". ![]() #Receiptbox error on mac freeThe newer package has to pick a weird-but-available name, but has the luxury of rebooting with a cleaner, simpler API and an implementation free of "bugs" that must be kept around in the name of backwards compatibility. #Receiptbox error on mac softwareI think part of this is that in software ecosystems that have been around a long time, the most obvious descriptive name for a package tends to have been chosen by the package that got there first but is now has an API riddled with outdated anti-patterns and whose code hasn't been touched in a decade because eventually everything becomes a breaking change. > Aesthetically, at this point descriptive names almost look unprofessional, or at least quickly made. If you hate features I guess it's a good way to make them hard to implement. Now you gotta have a separate frame droppy preprocess thing, and the part that does communication has to tell it what kind of loss you have, but even that is not just sending data, so more likely you won't get that feature at all, or you'll have to go beyond the name. ![]() If you have a "datasender" people will say "This shouldn't preprocess data! This shouldn't compress! This shouldn't intelligently decide when to drop frames! It should just send!" This isn't some minimal internal thing for one specific use case that probably isn't mine. If it's called Vue, I'm going to think it's big enough that someone thought it was worth it to spend an hour thinking of names. If you call your thing "ui-state-syncer" I'm going to suspect it's not really a big budget mainstream thing. * I could have been a good academic or scientist.Īesthetically, at this point descriptive names almost look unprofessional, or at least quickly made. * This isn't an original joke, but it is further refined. But why is it less funny? What does that reveal about priorities and still-existing prejudices in LANG? Does that mean that the original use is also less funny in certain contexts, such as public spaces? Ignoring the runtime's own priorities and values changes this. Note how the meaning of the variable changes with bitch_now? It feels more uncomfortable doesn't it? Less of a joke. Will this change speed up development, or more likely, introduce errors? Will advances in language development environments reduce that concern?īitch_please, bitch_now, bitch_after_next_slice We currently utilize function parameters as the only input to functions, leaving a powerful source of information untapped on the left-hand-side. ![]() Removing it from the domain of library convention to language feature. Perhaps we can develop a language standard for async priority variable prefixes and suffixes. Is it an attempt to police the behavior of the async runtime? As a non-mainstream user of a minority language with pluggable runtimes, do I have the right to reappropriate this word? I invite spirited debate on this change request. Just in spite of this comment I'm going to name all my futures : ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |