On 2 May 2014, at 10:08, d...@axiom-developer.org wrote:
(Just as an aside, there is a conference called "Write the Docs".
see http://writethedocs.org)
The only way to find out is to read the code - that is, the
algorithm,
not just the names. (This code was documented, by the way.) In my
experience clashes between the natural language semantics of function
and var names on the one had, and the jobs they actually do on the
other, is pervasive, and I see little chance that this will ever
change. Not because programmers are dumb but because coming up with
expressive and accurate names is hard and time consuming.
Imagine if a physics professor said that the only way to understand
anything was to read the formula... not the text "documentation". In
some sense it is true that the formula (i.e. code) is "truth" but
everyone EXPECTS that the surrounding text is accurate and up to
date. Otherwise, there would be a LOT of people telling the author
about the mismatch. Why don't we expect the same in programming?
Because, unlike the laws of physics, programming "formula" are in a
constant state of flux and can be modified by mortals. Physics formulae
describe a system; code is the system.
:Fuzz
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
