I is for Intent
acko.net
I is for Intent
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: I is for Intent
#2I'm having trouble connecting the opening paragraphs to the examples much at all. A lot of this seems like splitting semantic hairs -- can't we just generalize our applications "State" to include the "Intent"? The text editing example doesn't require "invalid transitions" because there's nothing invalid about the state "desired_column: 6, current_column: 1".
Which, BTW, is not to say that this delineation isn't useful as a design idea. The author just seems to be under the impression that this is an argument against... idk, strong typing? Making invalid states unrepresentable? And it just isn't.
Re: I is for Intent
#3> Stanley loves strong and static typing. He's a big fan of pattern matching
Funny, the language that made me a fan of pattern matching was Elixir.
Re: I is for Intent
#4[dead]
Re: I is for Intent
#5> Stanley loves strong and static typing. He's a big fan of pattern matching Funny, the language that made me a fan of pattern matching was Elixir.
[flagged]
Re: I is for Intent
#6> Stanley can't dismiss this as just frivolous UI polish for limp wristed homosexuals.
… ???
Re: I is for Intent
#7> Stanley loves strong and static typing. He's a big fan of pattern matching Funny, the language that made me a fan of pattern matching was Elixir.
I think you missed the rest of the sentence:
> He's a big fan of pattern matching, and enums, and discriminated unions, which allow correctness to be verified at compile time.
And the forest for the trees:
> [Stanley] hates any source of uncertainty or ambiguity
> [the author argues] this view of software is not just wrong, but fundamentally incompatible with the real world.
The author paints a picture of someone who chooses these tools not because they are nice tools or because the tools are helpful but because of desires that stem from misguided, dogmatic, unhelpful beliefs that make the subject a worse engineer.
By contrast, you are probably a lovely person who loves writing nice code. This article has nothing to say about you.
Re: I is for Intent
#8> I chose a text editor as an example because Stanley can't dismiss this as just frivolous UI polish for limp wristed homosexuals.
Well, that's... a choice of language.
Anyway, I suppose I'd better go check exactly when in the '90s this was originally written, and put a comment suggesting that the year be added to the HN title.
...
2024
Huh.
Well, I suppose we should congratulate the author for having woken from their 30-year coma. Before introducing them to all the LGB+ (don't push them too quickly!) acceptance progress that's been made in that time...
Re: I is for Intent
#9> I chose a text editor as an example because Stanley can't dismiss this as just frivolous UI polish for limp wristed homosexuals. Well, that's... a choice of language. Anyway, I suppose I'd better go check exactly when in the '90s this was originally written, and put a comment suggesting that the year be added to the HN title. ... 2024 Huh. Well, I suppose we should congratulate the author for having woken from thei…
I think maybe the author was casually mocking their strawperson Stanley (who they effectively characterized as old), by also associating him with other ideas widely considered outmoded and shameful.
Ironically, if Stanley's experience originated as an Internet-savvy techie of 30 years ago, that would be of the "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" era, when people who were gay, trans, or of other marginalized groups, could go online and find places where they can be accepted. Stanley supported trans friends before most people even knew that was a thing.
Or, if we're still trying to link older with wronger, go back to Stanley's counterculture hippie parents, who were more progressive than today's typical holder of now-fashionable ideas.
The author discusses their actual ideas at length. I think they went a bit off-track throughout the piece, when distinguishing their ideas from some current model, accidentally straying into tactics of propaganda rather than reason. And incidentally contributing to ageism.
Re: I is for Intent
#10> Stanley can't dismiss this as just frivolous UI polish for limp wristed homosexuals. … ???
I know. This author is writing from a pretty weird place, especially if they're first categorizing fictional "Stanley" as backend Engineer.