3 ms·

In my mind standardisation is how we really solve problems in much of software development. Everything before that is just practice and/or hacks.

Kinrany 6y ago
> In my mind standardisation is how we really solve problems in much of software development. I've been having this thought very often lately. The only way for humans to do something faster is to use a machine. Any machine is built on some assumption that something is repeatedly true, that some things can be repeatedly interacted with in the same way. Finding true invariants is very hard, but our world is increasingly malleable. Over time it is getting easier to invent new invariants and pad things out so that the invariant holds.
- akiselev 6y ago
  It's true not just for machines but engineering in general. Whether it's civil or mechanical or electronic or semiconductor engineering, their foundation is built on setting boundary conditions to make the natural world predictable so that it can be reliably manipulated. Things most often go wrong when those conditions are poorly understood, constrained, or modeled such as when using an unproven material, using imprecise parts, or ignoring thermal expansion when designing structural components. Engineers have a plethora of quality control standards and centuries of built up knowledge to make this chaos manageable and the problems tractable.
baryphonic 6y ago
I'm fine with standardization, as long as I set the standard. For standard 0, I propose that the only spelling for "standardization" will be with a 'z' (which is itself pronounced "zee").
- everybodyknows 6y ago
  American here too -- but don't think it's reasonable to demand American spelling from the rest of the Anglophone world.
  - baryphonic 6y ago
    I think the downvotes are missing the point. This is a key problem with standards: sometimes they standardize around something unreasonable. And tech is already riddled with all sorts of standards which are half-implemented in n different ways. I think a better approach would be to have a specification for more robust negotiation protocols. When I see "standardisation," I already know that this means the same thing as "standardization" and furthermore that I should expect to see "colour"/"honour," organizations referred to in plural, "from today" rather than "beginning today" or "starting today," and even "jumpers" over "sweaters," "lorries" over "trucks," "biscuits" over "cookies," and more interrogative sentences in conversation. A British English speaker likely does the same process in reverse.
    - everybodyknows 6y ago
      Perhaps I should clarify that "demanding American spelling is unreasonable" was specific to the context of HN (or other open discussion forums with international readership). Within say, the volunteer-maintained documentation of MDN, the tradeoffs are quite different. There, ease of reading for reference by busy coders is much more valuable relative to ease of typing up a new contribution. Frequent switches between "color" and "colour" become a time-wasting distraction. MDN should pick a standard and insist on it. And if Ubuntu chooses to require British spelling throughout, I'd say that's good.

Kinrany 6y ago

> In my mind standardisation is how we really solve problems in much of software development. I've been having this thought very often lately. The only way for humans to do something faster is to use a machine. Any machine is built on some assumption that something is repeatedly true, that some things can be repeatedly interacted with in the same way. Finding true invariants is very hard, but our world is increasingly malleable. Over time it is getting easier to invent new invariants and pad things out so that the invariant holds.

akiselev 6y ago
It's true not just for machines but engineering in general. Whether it's civil or mechanical or electronic or semiconductor engineering, their foundation is built on setting boundary conditions to make the natural world predictable so that it can be reliably manipulated. Things most often go wrong when those conditions are poorly understood, constrained, or modeled such as when using an unproven material, using imprecise parts, or ignoring thermal expansion when designing structural components. Engineers have a plethora of quality control standards and centuries of built up knowledge to make this chaos manageable and the problems tractable.

baryphonic 6y ago

I'm fine with standardization, as long as I set the standard. For standard 0, I propose that the only spelling for "standardization" will be with a 'z' (which is itself pronounced "zee").

everybodyknows 6y ago
American here too -- but don't think it's reasonable to demand American spelling from the rest of the Anglophone world.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  I think the downvotes are missing the point. This is a key problem with standards: sometimes they standardize around something unreasonable. And tech is already riddled with all sorts of standards which are half-implemented in n different ways. I think a better approach would be to have a specification for more robust negotiation protocols. When I see "standardisation," I already know that this means the same thing as "standardization" and furthermore that I should expect to see "colour"/"honour," organizations referred to in plural, "from today" rather than "beginning today" or "starting today," and even "jumpers" over "sweaters," "lorries" over "trucks," "biscuits" over "cookies," and more interrogative sentences in conversation. A British English speaker likely does the same process in reverse.
  - everybodyknows 6y ago
    Perhaps I should clarify that "demanding American spelling is unreasonable" was specific to the context of HN (or other open discussion forums with international readership). Within say, the volunteer-maintained documentation of MDN, the tradeoffs are quite different. There, ease of reading for reference by busy coders is much more valuable relative to ease of typing up a new contribution. Frequent switches between "color" and "colour" become a time-wasting distraction. MDN should pick a standard and insist on it. And if Ubuntu chooses to require British spelling throughout, I'd say that's good.