4 ms·
I think it's quite reminiscent of car infrastructure, in that you can know all the rules, but primarily you're interacting with other people who have varying kn
by 8note 3y ago
I think it's quite reminiscent of car infrastructure, in that you can know all the rules, but primarily you're interacting with other people who have varying knowledge and skill with the rules.
The dutch make a strong case for the rules to follow what the people do naturally, and using design to make the correct thing the easiest one, rather than presenting a stiff ruleset and expecting people to contort themselves around it.
I don't know what a dutch programming language looks like, but i think it'd be better than what we've got now in terms of all readers and writers getting the same understanding of the same code
- throwaway81523 3y ago> I don't know what a dutch programming language looks like Python? Heh. (Not Pascal: Wirth is Swiss). And of course, Dijkstra was involved with Algol 60.
- jmopp 3y agoFrom the Zen of Python: There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
- myaccountonhn 3y agoI agree with the importance of designing things after how people act naturally, but with UX I think we sometimes go overboard with this mentality. Sometimes it feels like you can never expect people to have some base level of knowledge (or for heavens sake, make them learn something new), which makes it so that you remove vital features, change syntax to accompany what people are used to or change the architecture in a way that is more easily understood but hurts in a long run. There is a balance to struck.