4 ms·
Again the dreaded Cobol argument. We had to struggle with a lot of this in the past: Cobol, SQL, YAML, BDD. All this would be much easier without this nonsensi
by szastamasta 5y ago
Again the dreaded Cobol argument. We had to struggle with a lot of this in the past: Cobol, SQL, YAML, BDD. All this would be much easier without this nonsensical idea that nontechnical people will read code. They won’t. Making code a bit more like prose doesn’t make it readable for nontechnical people. Yet we again and again make our life harder - ugly syntax rules, no code completion, no auto-formatters.
Please stop making code easy for non-coders. They don’t want to read it. They never did. They just want this damn box to work.
- gmadsen 5y agoas a counter argument. I work in robotics, where many operators will look at and change settings in a yaml file during testing. They do not have software skills outside of this.
- eitland 5y agoMy educated guess then is you could have gotten them to change "settings" in C, Java or basically anything. Just put the file in the root folder, and keep it as simple as possible and you should be fine? I mean, if they manage to write yaml correctly and consistently C is no match?
- gmadsen 5y agomaybe? the dynamic loading of the configs kind of restricts it to a markup language.
- sockpuppet_12 5y agoThe reason the situation is the way it is now is precisely because the code being made easy for non-coders increased the popularity and reach of the products. Probably because non-coders also found it easy to pick up and start working with it.
- andybak 5y agoWrong use case. I'm talking about asking them to write it edit these files.