3 ms·
This is s recurring complaint and I never understood it. Names are made to be memorable, not unique. Our brains are not a hash table, where every entity would
by ocimbote 3y ago
This is s recurring complaint and I never understood it. Names are made to be memorable, not unique.
Our brains are not a hash table, where every entity would have its own unique key and we'd use it to recall the entity.
- parasti 3y agoAren't they, though? My brain seems very much like a hash table. Duplicate names just make the hash key longer, which is not a big deal but harder to remember.
- quickthrower2 3y agoThat would be a hashtable whose values are lists :-). The buckets are for dealing with hash collisions not key collisions.
- user432678 3y ago<putting on “actually” hat> Brains maybe not, but google search will probably return not the things you’re supposed to be looking for if there are names collision.
- ocimbote 3y agoIf, in real life, your searches are just single keywords like "neat", I'd love to have a peer session with you, I'm bringing the popcorn :D I've just searched a more typical (for me) "github neat css" in DDG and the 1st result is just as expected.
- user432678 3y agoIn this current situation I would google “neat css <some rare problem I was not able to resolve myself>” expecting it show me SO answers or reddit discussions. Instead I’ll be getting information about old and deprecated CSS grid library for Ruby on Rails. I am not saying it’s impossible, just added my “two annoying pence nobody was asking for” :)
- itake 3y agoI agree. Our brains segment information by context. In this situation, we have 2 libraries with the same name in the same context. Now for both of these, I have to store additional context alongside each name in my brain.