From: Tom Cloyd <tomcloyd@...>
Date: 2008-06-17T20:56:44+09:00
Subject: Re: print(true and true) #=> the parenthesis issue

Marc Heiler wrote:
> Dear Tom Cloyd,
>
> "What happened to the principal of least surprise? Yikes.
>
> Keep it simple, when at all possible."
>
> Your suggestive (and false) remarks are irritating at best. 
Interest assertions...or rather they might be if there were an argument 
accompanying them. Name calling is easy. My argument(s) may be false, 
but at least I made an effort. If you find them false, point out the 
error. As for the "irritating" part - I'm supposing that that might have 
to do with a perception that to attempt this might take time and effort. 
But...I'm speculating.
> There is 
> only one principle of least surprise, if ever, and this is by the one 
> who designs the language. 
My questions stands. You do not address it. And...I believe there is 
more than one hand stirring Ruby's pot, and that is common knowledge.
> There is no GENERAL CONSENSUS applicable to a 
> "principle of least surprise" because different expectations, patterns, 
> experience will yield to different perceptions of any given situation.
>   
Certainly. No issue here.
> The KISS strategy is only one more strategy in a pool of different 
> strategies.
>   
Obviously, but what's your point? The "principle of parsimony" (often 
attributed to William of Occam) is well established and accepted in 
philosophy, the law, and in argumentation in general. It's NOT simply 
one among many, to paraphrase you. It's fundamental - to good reason 
and, one could assert (and I do) to good design in general. And to 
aesthetics.

The point of parsimony, aside from the avoidance or the error which tend 
to propagate as a function of complexity, would seem to have to do with 
the issue of usability which the original poster brought up. That which 
is simple is generally more understandable and thus more useful. Seems 
like a truly key idea, to me.
> I have seen it used in the game Wesnoth and what this basically means it 
> that they slavishly reject features that "would make the game too 
> complicated".
> To the extreme that, when one suggests simplification to a game 
> interface, a similar reasoning is used to reject it ("would make the 
> code too complicated")
>   
A good tool, poorly applied, is none the worse for it.
> Whether this is intentional or not, it is their decision, but it would 
> not be the ONLY available strategy to create/solve something.
>   
Who made THAT silly assertion? Not me.
> I'd rather not stick to ANYONE's "keep it simple" mantra, definitely not 
> when multiple people jump on it and pick it up to shout something is a 
> bug when it is not what they expect.
>
> If anyone wants to know my principle of leat surprise, then I'd never 
> have a parser that makes a difference between && and "and" or similar. 
> But I am no language designer.
>   
To repeat (and I do so in part because you did not address these 
matters) - I agreed that the particular syntactic issue at hand appears 
to be trivial to most of us most of the time, and also that its 
surprising nature leads me, at least, to wonder about other sorts of 
subtle, hidden issues which may be causing trouble in Ruby. (And give me 
credit for suggesting that such trouble as I encounter is far more 
likely to be self-caused than language caused.). It's reasonable to 
suppose such hidden issues
 exist, though probably not reasonable to worry too much about them. 
They can be fun to talk about however.

t.

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC
Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< tc@tomcloyd.com >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website & psychotherapy weblog)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health issues weblog)
<< directpathdesign.com >> (web site design & consultation)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~