5 ms·
Maybe instead of computer- or human-oriented programming, we need more human-oriented tools. Let there be lots of autocomplete and documentation.
by emptyparadise 6y ago
Maybe instead of computer- or human-oriented programming, we need more human-oriented tools. Let there be lots of autocomplete and documentation.
- wruza 6y agoYes. Usually there is just a list of names when you initiate autocompletion. But exploration could be more easy if instead of that list (or maybe as a separate mode of a completion, like <Dot><F1>) a panel popped up with a well-drawn cheatlist from which you could navigate and read synopsises easily. Most IDEs still do not even draw a separator between superclass borders.
- pbw 6y agoI think tools are great. I don't get into it in the article, but with both tools and humans you can in fact makes sense of complicated structures even if there are dozens of attributes per object, but the thing is it's hard, and that work is throw-away. If you spend three weeks studying a complex piece of code until it makes sense to you, unless you modify the code with your newfound understanding, the next person has to climb up that same ladder. So even if the tools are great, I think in maybe cases it's go to push that understanding back into the artifact, so the artifact improves. A counter-example might be legacy software where it's just too risky to make anythings. Then maybe you just push your understanding into really good documentation, or a 2nd parallel implementation.