4 ms·

Binary has nothing to do with it insofar that the space is adequately described by two labels. The problem is solely that the labels are unclear, and the argume

Binary has nothing to do with it insofar that the space is adequately described by two labels. The problem is solely that the labels are unclear, and the argument of the article is harmed by bringing binary into it. I could just as easily extend the colored functions[1] analogy by bringing into it yellow functions that are also annoying to call and have their own incompatibilities[2], and now we have three labels, red/blue/yellow which tell me nothing at all; honestly I don't even remember which ones are red functions and which ones are blue. Of course in the case of the original article the labels are supposed to be arbitrary and don't matter, but responses to it continue to use the colors and thus attach semantic significance to them. [1] https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-your-function/ https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-...

xphx 5y ago
I think you are correct and am confused why you're being voted down without explanation.
- tgv 5y ago
  IMO too, it's a stronger argument. The duplicity (which would have been a great word to use in the article) is not the point: open and closed are suitable metaphors for systems. It's the semantic gap/lack of relation between concept and name, and that applies to any other arity as well. It's just that binary separations are very frequent: we really like to split the world in two.
bobbiechen 5y ago
(Author here) Thanks, that's fair criticism. My frustration with the binary case specifically is that because there are only two options, and they should be easier to name for that reason. I didn't really explain that in the post, though, which is my fault. Yes, these are a subset of unclear naming. I do think naming is such a broad topic that talking about specific subtypes of bad naming is useful, to sharpen our awareness around those specific pitfalls. In colored functions, yeah, it's unfortunate that some readers continue to extend the (meaningless) colors metaphor, which helped remove preconceptions about sync/async to make a point. I wish people wouldn't do that. See also, the fictitious "Nacirema" https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Body_Ritual_among_the_Nacirema https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Body_Ritual_among_the_Nacirem... .

xphx 5y ago

I think you are correct and am confused why you're being voted down without explanation.

tgv 5y ago
IMO too, it's a stronger argument. The duplicity (which would have been a great word to use in the article) is not the point: open and closed are suitable metaphors for systems. It's the semantic gap/lack of relation between concept and name, and that applies to any other arity as well. It's just that binary separations are very frequent: we really like to split the world in two.

bobbiechen 5y ago

(Author here) Thanks, that's fair criticism. My frustration with the binary case specifically is that because there are only two options, and they should be easier to name for that reason. I didn't really explain that in the post, though, which is my fault. Yes, these are a subset of unclear naming. I do think naming is such a broad topic that talking about specific subtypes of bad naming is useful, to sharpen our awareness around those specific pitfalls. In colored functions, yeah, it's unfortunate that some readers continue to extend the (meaningless) colors metaphor, which helped remove preconceptions about sync/async to make a point. I wish people wouldn't do that. See also, the fictitious "Nacirema" https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Body_Ritual_among_the_Nacirema https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Body_Ritual_among_the_Nacirem... .