3 ms·
UX implies usability as well as aesthetics. Any time spent worrying about the aesthetics of code is time not spent solving problems. In terms of usability, off
by pigs 15y ago
UX implies usability as well as aesthetics. Any time spent worrying about the aesthetics of code is time not spent solving problems. In terms of usability, off the top of my head, two things that I find useful are:
1) Editors with syntax highlighting. I can't be bothered to worry about what typefaces or encoding it supports.
2) Languages that force a consistent approach to implementing a given task. I'd have to throw out Perl and its Tim Toady ethos.
- dextorious 15y ago"""UX implies usability as well as aesthetics. Any time spent worrying about the aesthetics of code is time not spent solving problems.""" Only an ignorant can separate aesthetics from coding. The top programmers agree that good code is also beautiful. In fact this is often stated also about good maths.
- pigs 15y agoPerhaps I wasn't clear, but I was referring specifically to the aesthetics of the typeface. Good code in monospace is no less beautiful than good code in font X.
- dextorious 15y agoThen agreed.
- gtrak 15y agoI very much believe in beautiful and clear monospace. This can translate into benefits for the time it takes your eyes and brain to interpret what you see. Time is money.
- pnathan 15y agoLanguages that force a consistent approach to implementing a given task Typically I do enough off-the-wall stuff that languages with an opinion on design (python for instance) get in my way. Perl >> Python.