6 ms·
> phone note apps for me tend to be write only In that vein, I've recently realized that the CRUD model also defines how I interact with task management apps -
by Infernal 9y ago
> phone note apps for me tend to be write only
In that vein, I've recently realized that the CRUD model also defines how I interact with task management apps - I Create lots of stuff, Read maybe 10% of that, Update maybe 50% of what I read, and then maybe Delete (or mark done/hide) 10% of what I update - in short tons of stuff goes in and almost nothing ever comes out.
I realized that with data on a computer, for the most part the default state is that it lives forever, and you have to take positive action to remove data. With paper or physical media, the default state is for things to be lost/culled over time and positive action must be taken to retain things with some sort of organization. "Lost" can mean that what you wrote down 3 months ago is now 30 pages back in your daily notebook, etc. The "presence" of the data fades a bit over time.
So, for me, positive action is fatiguing. It is more valuable to have an organization system that is self-limiting where I must take positive action to capture more, rather than one where I must take positive action to distill far too much data down to what is important. I'm always looking for a better system, but so far a daily notebook where I keep the important stuff "bubbled up" to the most recent 1-3 pages has been more sustainable than any of the Wunderlist/Notes/Reminders/Omnifocus/Trello/etc. ever were.
- convolvatron 9y agoi think this applies to programming issues as well. the IETF used to strongly emphasize 'soft state' protocols. Not that there was no state, but it was always associated with a timeout and went away on its own. A best effort cache - although alot of these protocols (i.e pim) depend on having some non-zero lifetime to work at all. think about the additional bookkeeping and correctness issues associated with the destruction/cleanup path. alot of the time we maintain references and search structures so that we can 'properly clean up', when in reality we just want to tear down the whole world. construction and destruction do have a certain pleasant symmetry, but since the destruction path is often less tested and error prone, and may double the work at hand, isn't it worth considering implicit destruction?