From: Hal Fulton Date: 2003-08-27T06:50:43+09:00 Subject: Re: Quotable quote from Matz Steven Lumos wrote: > "Shashank Date" wrote in message news:... > >>"Lyle Johnson" wrote in message >>news:3F466B7E.3030005@users.sourceforge.net... >> >>>One can also refer to this slide from Matz's OSCON2003 presentation: >>> >>> http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/oscon2003/mgp00043.jpg >>> >>>Or, to paraphrase another of Matz's lines from the past: "'Principle of >>>Least Surprise' means least surprise to *me*" ;) >> >>Yes, the *me* part needs to be underscored heavily. Otherwise, it is >>ambiguous and people are naturally going to interpret it in their own >>context. > > > The real problem is that THE Principal of Least Surprise is used in > the first place. That implies a universal. Some quick google > searches for POLS and POLA imply that most people consider it to apply > the the users and not the developer/language designer. > > If anyone is really bothered that much by it, use a more clear name, > like DSM (Doesn't Surprise Matz), or ITM (Intuitive to Matz). > > Besides, wouldn't it be much more fun for people to post "DSM > violations" which then go on to argue why Matz should be surprised? Well, obviously the original meaning implied a universal. But it's never really universal, because we don't all agree. It's only a guideline or a cute way of saying that software ought to be intuitive. There has never been an objective way of measuring surprise. Someone will disagree with that, too. :) I think the point is: Express your preference, but don't pretend it's universal. Little if anything would be unanimous if put to a vote on this group (or any other). Or another point: You can't try to "push" Matz into changing something (solely) on the basis that you think it's surprising. ("You" meaning the generic "you" or "we.") Firstly, it won't work; and secondly, it's gotten tiresome. Or to put it more succinctly: Matz.respond_to?(:pols) # false # Or perhaps he responds but raises an exception :) By the way: I'm always curious to know whether anyone can find a verifiable reference to this principle earlier than the Geoffrey James quote (in _The Tao of Programming_) about the Law of Least Astonishment. That was '86 or so. If someone finds an earlier one, please email me. Cheers, Hal