On 12/18/2013 2:32 AM, Kirk Fraser wrote:
> ... I do generally like Smalltalk, but I've heard the old "it's
> self-documenting" argument about Fortran. As it turns out, in the
> work environment I was told that in, to understand their data
> definition you had to have a degree in Forestry - although the boss
> disputed that. I think the only solution is to write an AI programmer
> that can explain its code.
I won't talk about Fortran, but Smalltalk was designed to be good for
people to read and write. To read and really understand English or
Spanish literature you may say you need a degree in Englishtry or
Spanishtry... To read and understand Math stuff you might need a degree
in Mathstry... Is that a bad thing? Being literate requires some
knowledge... I have read some "annotated" or "explained" versions of
some Borges's and some E. A. Poe's works. They are good as an intro to a
new literature, but after that, they are no good. Reading the bare real
thing is much better if you are up to it. Same happens with music too.
Having some guide to explore a new music genre is good. But once you get
it, it is better to just listen and experience.
The same may happen with code. It happens with Smalltalk code, that is
meant to express human knowledge. At least, I write code with such
intention.
Cheers,
Juan Vuletich
_______________________________________________
Cuis mailing list
[hidden email]
http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
Locked
