4 ms·

I'm new to programming in the last few years, so please excuse my ignorance here. When I hear/read the word "ergonomics", I think of proper posture and hand/he

by akulbe 9y ago

I'm new to programming in the last few years, so please excuse my ignorance here. When I hear/read the word "ergonomics", I think of proper posture and hand/head/eye position when you're working on a computer. What does the word mean when used in this context? Thanks. :)

ben0x539 9y ago
I think when people talk about ergonomics of a programming language, it basically means "convenience", but more dramatic. If your language offers a good way to express the problem, but it's inconvenient (too much typing to write it out, makes you think too much about inessential problems, fragile and needs to be adjusted when other code changes, ...), the total cognitive overhead (TCO? heh) might be higher than if you just used a different, worse way to express the problem, thus potentially making really cool language features completely useless because people won't want to use them.
cesarb 9y ago
Think of a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver. Its handle must have the correct shape for a comfortable and strong grip; a handle that's too thick, too thin, or oddly shaped, will be hard to use. The tool's shape must not force you to hold it in a strange position. The tool's length must be adequate for the task; neither too long, nor too short. Now apply that to a software tool, like a compiler.
currymj 9y ago
it's kind of a subjective judgment. it's easier to define bad ergonomics, I think -- it's where the way part of the language is designed requires you to write very contorted, strange code to accomplish a task that ought to be simpler. you know it when you see it. in whatever languages you know, look for places where there's a lot of tedious repetitive typing, and deep nesting that seems frustratingly unnecessary. if you know Java, working with exceptions in Java has terrible ergonomics, bad enough that people come to resent the entire exception system even though it has many nice qualities.

by akulbe 9y ago

ben0x539 9y ago

I think when people talk about ergonomics of a programming language, it basically means "convenience", but more dramatic. If your language offers a good way to express the problem, but it's inconvenient (too much typing to write it out, makes you think too much about inessential problems, fragile and needs to be adjusted when other code changes, ...), the total cognitive overhead (TCO? heh) might be higher than if you just used a different, worse way to express the problem, thus potentially making really cool language features completely useless because people won't want to use them.

cesarb 9y ago

Think of a tool, like a hammer or a screwdriver. Its handle must have the correct shape for a comfortable and strong grip; a handle that's too thick, too thin, or oddly shaped, will be hard to use. The tool's shape must not force you to hold it in a strange position. The tool's length must be adequate for the task; neither too long, nor too short. Now apply that to a software tool, like a compiler.

currymj 9y ago

it's kind of a subjective judgment. it's easier to define bad ergonomics, I think -- it's where the way part of the language is designed requires you to write very contorted, strange code to accomplish a task that ought to be simpler. you know it when you see it. in whatever languages you know, look for places where there's a lot of tedious repetitive typing, and deep nesting that seems frustratingly unnecessary. if you know Java, working with exceptions in Java has terrible ergonomics, bad enough that people come to resent the entire exception system even though it has many nice qualities.