Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > On 2/13/11 3:15 AM, foobar wrote: > > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > > > >> On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote: > >>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> I don't find the name "iota" stupid. > >>>> > >>>> Andrei > >>> > >>> Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it > >>> poorly named, including other developers in the project.. This is the > >>> umpteenth time this comes up in the NG and incidentally this is the > >>> only reason I know what the function does. > >>> > >>> If the users think the name is stupid than it really is. That's how > >>> usability works and the fact the you think otherwise or that it might > >>> be more accurate mathematically is really not relevant. If you want > >>> D/Phobos to be used by other people besides yourself you need to > >>> cater for their requirements. > >> > >> Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are > >> fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if > >> a better name for iota comes about. > >> > >> Andrei > > > > Usability seems to be Achilles' heel of D and is a recurrent theme on the > > NG. Usability cannot be mathematically deduced even though you seem to try > > hard to do just that. > > I think it would be a bit of an exaggeration to characterize the choice > of name "iota" as an impediment to usability. I'd agree if it were an > endemic problem, but generally I think the choice of names in Phobos is > adequate. >
It's not just a one time thing with one function name. There is a reoccurring pattern with function names and other such aspects and it doesn't need to be endemic in order to be looked at and improved. It's not just the naming (which I don't think is adequate), it's other things too such as the organization & categorization of the code in Phobos, the web-site (already being worked on), the tool-chain could be improved, etc. I'm mostly complaining about the parts where there is little to no improvements. > > This reminds me the story of a Google designer that quit the company, > > being frustrated by the engineering mind-set of the company. He gave > > many amusing examples of a complete lack of understanding of design > > principals such as choosing the shade of blue by doing a "scientific" > > comparison of a thousand different shades. > > "Principles"!!! "Principles"!!! I hate that typo. Excuse me but I'm not a native English speaker and the spell check missed that. > > > could we for once put aside otherwise valid implementation concerns > > such as efficiency and mathematical correctness and treat usability > > as valid important concern? Could we for once accept that The users' > > opinion is not "fallacious" and have a user oriented design is not a > > bad thing or are we implementing for the sake of boosting ones own > > ego and nothing else? > > I've already mentioned: I'm ready to change this name and others if > consensus comes about. Generally efficiency and mathematical correctness > don't clash badly with choice of names, so probably you're referring to > something beyond that - just let us know. > > > Andrei