4 ms·
> I bemoan the fact that we must sometimes use a human language instead of a programming language. Human languages are imprecise and full of ambiguities. Using
by Hasu 2y ago
> I bemoan the fact that we must sometimes use a human language instead of a programming language. Human languages are imprecise and full of ambiguities. Using a human language to describe something as precise as a program is very hard, and fraught with many opportunities for error and inadvertent misinformation.
This quote from Uncle Bob is shameful, considering that he has made 100% of his career on writing English, not code.
- WillAdams 2y agoAn interesting contrast to it is Ousterhout's observation: >If you can visualize a system, you can probably implement it in a >computer program.... This means that the greatest limitation in writing >software is our ability to understand the systems we are creating. Though interestingly it is in marked contrast to a different statement in the "Software Design Book" Google mailing list: >John Ousterhout, Aug 21, 2018, 12:30:15 PM >I've never felt that graphs are a particularly useful way of describing software structure. >The interactions between classes end up so complicated that the graph becomes an unreadable mess. >Also, I'm not sure that the complexity of a graph representation of software correlates with its >practical complexity (the graph representation might look very complicated, but the software might >still be pretty easy to maintain). and I'd be interested if someone knows of a text/video/interview which resolves that twain, or what sort of visualization is advocated for/recommended.
- Izkata 2y agoStructure graphs are rarely useful for me, but visualizing the data flow is how I think about code in general. Sometimes it's graph-like, but more wishy-washy and I'm only holding the relevant parts for the task at hand in my head rather than everything.