3 ms·

It might be my cynicism, but in the PL literature I find "intuitive" to be a very low calorie word. Obviously you would describe your own system as "intuitive"

by munin 9y ago

It might be my cynicism, but in the PL literature I find "intuitive" to be a very low calorie word. Obviously you would describe your own system as "intuitive" what are you going to do, write a paper that says "we have a complicated and difficult to understand system S that..." "intuitive" is very subjective, I think. I know lots of PL people that think that functional programming, for example, is intuitive. After many years of study and practice, I too find functional programming intuitive, but I can remember a time when I did not, but I could still program. From this I conclude that something being "intuitive" is very subjective. Expressive power, on the other hand, I think we can put an objective definition on. My favorite take of this is Felleisen "On the Expressive Power of Programming Languages." Of course, what use is something being powerful?

Pete_D 9y ago
It always felt to me like when people use words like "intuitiveness" or "usability", they're all pointing at slightly different things. Matt Fuller's partitioning of user-friendliness into "easy to use", "easy to learn", and "easy to use without learning"[0] feels like it might be easier to set objective criteria for. For your example, you might say functional programming tends to be easy to use, but hard to learn and hard to use without learning. (I'm not current on PL/HCI literature, so it wouldn't surprise me if they already have these concepts, just with different labels.) [0] https://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/userfriendly/2 https://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/userfriendly/2
- zzzcpan 9y ago
  I don't think you can define an objective criteria for any of these terms, since they depend on previous experience and are inherently subjective. Instead more commonly used terms to more precisely describe "intuitiveness" or "usability" are: simplicity, consistency, universality, familiarity and flexibility.

by munin 9y ago

Pete_D 9y ago

It always felt to me like when people use words like "intuitiveness" or "usability", they're all pointing at slightly different things. Matt Fuller's partitioning of user-friendliness into "easy to use", "easy to learn", and "easy to use without learning"[0] feels like it might be easier to set objective criteria for. For your example, you might say functional programming tends to be easy to use, but hard to learn and hard to use without learning. (I'm not current on PL/HCI literature, so it wouldn't surprise me if they already have these concepts, just with different labels.) [0] https://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/userfriendly/2 https://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/rants/userfriendly/2

zzzcpan 9y ago
I don't think you can define an objective criteria for any of these terms, since they depend on previous experience and are inherently subjective. Instead more commonly used terms to more precisely describe "intuitiveness" or "usability" are: simplicity, consistency, universality, familiarity and flexibility.