Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.tcl,comp.software-eng,comp.windows.x
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!news.cerf.net!mr.net!medtronic.com!rosevax!camax01!kotula
From: kotula@camax.com (Jeff Kotula)
Subject: Re: Personal Preference: The Devil in Disguise
Message-ID: <1994Sep1.132601.7190@camax.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 13:26:01 GMT
References: <WINDLEY.94Aug24081415@jaguar.cs.byu.edu> <1994Aug25.003030.12467@reks.uia.ac.be> <1994Aug26.174831.5827@camax.com> <33lv4o$ghu@pulitzer.eng.sematech.org> <1994Aug28.141019.10054@camax.com> <33t3ou$g7t@pulitzer.eng.sematech.org>
Organization: CAMAX Systems, Inc.
Lines: 91
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.functional:5020 comp.lang.lisp:14426 comp.lang.misc:17461 comp.lang.tcl:18327 comp.software-eng:25303 comp.windows.x:88378

goochb@swim1.eng.sematech.org (Bill Gooch on SWIM project x7140) writes:


>In article <1994Aug28.141019.10054@camax.com>, kotula@camax.com (Jeff Kotula) writes:
>|> There is a threshold at which intuition becomes important.  Usually however,
>|> an intuition can be thought about for a while until the real issues reveal
>|> themselves.  I've found this to be universally true with my intuitions --

>I agree.  However, if intuition is thought to be inadequate, there's
>a significant risk of never realizing you should do the analysis, 
>because the reasons for doing it (and the "real issues") are fuzzy.

How so?  If you don't trust intuition you're more likely to do further
analysis.

>|> there is something solid there, you've just got to think about it for a bit.
>|> That said, intuition is not a valid argument.  Given a situation, you may

>I disagree - intuition is valid (at least that's how I feel).  You
>continue by providing one of the reasons that it may be important.

The discussion about intution really is getting off of my main point.  My
main point is that when you are discussing or arguing a position, on the net
or in technical discussions, using the argument of 'personal preference'
tends to shut down the discussion.  In this context, personal preference
should be viewed with great skepticism and the real reasons (if there are
any) found.

>|> The statement about user interface is absolutely false.  The problem with
>|> user interface design is that everybody thinks they are just as qualified to
>|> do it as everybody else, but have no background in how to do it.  They think
>|> they are qualified just because they are a user.  That's like saying since I
>|> know how to drive a car, I can design an alternate steering mechanism.  There
>|> is a lot of science in user interface design that is usually just ignored.

>For example?  I realize that scientific studies exist, but their
>results so far don't provide a strong, broad foundation for UI
>engineering.  This may be simply because there hasn't been enough
>time devoted to the effort yet to cover most of the bases, or it
>may be something inherent in the nature of UI design.  But until 
>there are what appear to be sound engineering principles that can
>guide the less-experienced through the process of designing and 
>implementing high-leverage, intuitive user interfaces for complex
>applications, the practice will continue to involve a lot of art.

Lots of literature, lots of experts in cognitive psychology and industrial
engineering.  You can argue that it is a 'soft' science, but its no softer
than software engineering is at this point.

>|> On the "programming is art" idea I can only reiterate what I've said before:
>|> calling programming art demeans art and provides a convenient excuse to
>|> avoid doing the hardest parts of programming.

>Nothing about what I've said should lead you to believe that I'm 
>interested in "an excuse to avoid doing the hardest parts of pro-
>gramming."  I think that what you have said demeans programming and
>those who program artistically.

I wasn't referring to your posting in particular.  When I've seen that
argument it is generally in the context of stating why requirements capture,
or design, or reviews and inspections are unimportant.

However, I do intend to demean those who program artistically.  Software
development is not the place for personal expression or celebration of life
or exploring the interconnectedness of all things.  Software is meant to get
the job done.  If it cannot be understood -- easily -- by a maintainer, it
is junk, no matter how 'artistic' it is.

>I would point out, though, that I never said "programming is art" 
>as a blanket statement, nor have I suggested that it is, or should
>be, primarily anything other than engineering.

>There seems to be a lot of feeling behind your comments - perhaps 
>you have a war story you'd like to tell?

Most of my disgust comes from working with code that was done in a very lax,
unprofessional way.  The attitude that produces this is only strengthened by
the 'art' argument.  Hence my venom:)

>|> A task that requires
>|> creativity doesn't automatically become art.  I've seen really good designs,
>|> but they're not art -- they're just really good designs.

>Quibbling over semantics.

That's what the discussion was about, so I don't see it as 'quibbling'.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
				 Jeff Kotula		kotula@camax.com
				 Camax Systems Inc.	Speaking only for myself
				 -----------------------------------------------
