undefined | Better HN

0 pointswallace_f8y ago0 comments

I basically agree with you, but we're arguing to different ends.

What I am saying is that there is nothing wrong with these arguments or with using them usefully. What is wrong is when nothing is falsifible or able to proven, either. So in other words, arguments are useful, but it does matter if it has to agree with scientific experiment.

Programming does, at the end of the day, agree with fundmantal truths for it to work. Its foundations are on the metal, and everything is reducible experimentability.

Perhaps everything except the human element: most aspects of modern product development involve programming language improvements that have to do with improving human interaction with a computer. But even here, we have a sort of market for ideas in that developers who adopt better ideas will be more successful.

0 comments

skybrian8y ago

It seems fundamental that you're building artifacts for users. In user interface design there's no hard science, no falsification. An application that wins now might lose later when things have changed, and this can be based on fashion.

Of course, it has to work. But a sculpture has to "work" too in the sense that it shouldn't collapse. Structural integrity is only part of the goal. Similarly for programs.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointswallace_f8y ago0 comments

I basically agree with you, but we're arguing to different ends.

Programming does, at the end of the day, agree with fundmantal truths for it to work. Its foundations are on the metal, and everything is reducible experimentability.

0 comments

skybrian8y ago

Of course, it has to work. But a sculpture has to "work" too in the sense that it shouldn't collapse. Structural integrity is only part of the goal. Similarly for programs.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse