xrrocha

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by xrrocha 9mo ago

   Thanks for this, Daniel! I've been working on a related piece [1] that arrives at Naur from a different angle. Your "knowledge debt" framing is valuable, it gives practitioners something concrete. And your emphasis on team pr
2. 2.▲
   Peter Naur's Documentation Pessimism(xrrocha.github.io)

   4 points by xrrocha 9mo ago|1 comments
3. 3.▲
   by xrrocha 9mo ago

   Peter Naur argued that programming is theory-building, and that theory cannot be fully captured in documentation. But his pessimism is narrower than supposed. It applies to technical documentation of artifacts, not documentation as a human
4. 4.▲
   by xrrocha 10mo ago

   This is one of the most insightful thoughts I've read about the role of LLM's in software development. So much so, indeed, its pertinence would remain pristine after removing all references to LLM's
5. 5.▲
   by xrrocha 3y ago

   I do
6. 6.▲
   by xrrocha 4y ago

   Yeah, Implementing the framework as such in Java with no other dependencies is a sound decision, imho. Laying out a Kotlin DSL on top of it could be an excellent opt-in feature to leverage the core in a more declarative way
7. 7.▲
   by xrrocha 4y ago

   This is reminiscent of JavaFX's original F3 formulation (aka JavaFX Script): object literals reflecting the GUI visual structure. JavaFX started out as a Java library on top of Swing but the lack of object literals and lambdas led to t