[HN Gopher] I is for Intent
___________________________________________________________________
I is for Intent
Author : devdoshi
Score : 37 points
Date : 2024-02-06 02:04 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (acko.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (acko.net)
| gipp wrote:
| I'm having trouble connecting the opening paragraphs to the
| examples much at all. A lot of this seems like splitting semantic
| hairs -- can't we just generalize our applications "State" to
| include the "Intent"? The text editing example doesn't require
| "invalid transitions" because there's nothing invalid about the
| state "desired_column: 6, current_column: 1".
|
| Which, BTW, is not to say that this delineation isn't useful as a
| design idea. The author just seems to be under the impression
| that this is an argument against... idk, strong typing? Making
| invalid states unrepresentable? And it just isn't.
| tl wrote:
| > Stanley loves strong and static typing. He's a big fan of
| pattern matching
|
| Funny, the language that made me a fan of pattern matching was
| Elixir.
| bounce76 wrote:
| The author only has a hammer, thus everything else must be a
| nail.
| striking wrote:
| I think you missed the rest of the sentence:
|
| > He's a big fan of pattern matching _, and enums, and
| discriminated unions, which allow correctness to be verified at
| compile time._
|
| And the forest for the trees:
|
| > [Stanley] hates any source of uncertainty or ambiguity
|
| > [the author argues] this view of software is not just wrong,
| but fundamentally incompatible with the real world.
|
| The author paints a picture of someone who chooses these tools
| not because they are nice tools or because the tools are
| helpful but because of desires that stem from misguided,
| dogmatic, unhelpful beliefs that make the subject a worse
| engineer.
|
| By contrast, you are probably a lovely person who loves writing
| nice code. This article has nothing to say about you.
| deathanatos wrote:
| > _Stanley can 't dismiss this as just frivolous UI polish for
| limp wristed homosexuals._
|
| ... ???
| mattxxx wrote:
| I know. This author is writing from a pretty weird place,
| especially if they're first categorizing fictional "Stanley" as
| backend Engineer.
| Karellen wrote:
| > I chose a text editor as an example because Stanley can't
| dismiss this as just frivolous UI polish for limp wristed
| homosexuals.
|
| Well, that's... a choice of language.
|
| Anyway, I suppose I'd better go check exactly when in the '90s
| this was originally written, and put a comment suggesting that
| the year be added to the HN title.
|
| ...
|
| _2024_
|
| Huh.
|
| Well, I suppose we should congratulate the author for having
| woken from their 30-year coma. Before introducing them to all the
| LGB+ (don't push them too quickly!) acceptance progress that's
| been made in that time...
| neilv wrote:
| I think maybe the author was casually mocking their strawperson
| Stanley (who they effectively characterized as old), by also
| associating him with other ideas widely considered outmoded and
| shameful.
|
| Ironically, if Stanley's experience originated as an Internet-
| savvy techie of 30 years ago, that would be of the "on the
| Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" era, when people who were
| gay, trans, or of other marginalized groups, could go online
| and find places where they can be accepted. Stanley supported
| trans friends before most people even knew that was a thing.
|
| Or, if we're still trying to link older with wronger, go back
| to Stanley's counterculture hippie parents, who were more
| progressive than today's typical holder of now-fashionable
| ideas.
|
| The author discusses their actual ideas at length. I think they
| went a bit off-track throughout the piece, when distinguishing
| their ideas from some current model, accidentally straying into
| tactics of propaganda rather than reason. And incidentally
| contributing to ageism.
| mattxxx wrote:
| Is it hard to teach "Intent", because the treatise here isn't
| well thought out?
|
| The article starts with building a straw person, Stanley (who is
| weirdly homophobic for some reason?), and doesn't really
| articulate "here's how you code with intent" and "why coding with
| intent is important". Instead, it tries to tear apart people who
| don't use intent.
| theoriginaldave wrote:
| I'm having trouble because I read the headline "I is for
| _indent_."
|
| I made it all the way to the caret position before I realized my
| intent was completely wrong.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-07 23:00 UTC)