Comments on: Code Head http://www.infovark.com/2008/01/31/code-head/ Digging the world of Enterprise 2.0 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:18:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: noah http://www.infovark.com/2008/01/31/code-head/#comment-169 noah Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:46:09 +0000 http://www.infovark.com/2008/01/31/code-head/#comment-169 I totally agree with you it is really like that. I totally agree with you it is really like that.

]]> By: The Address Bar as the New Command Line « Infovark Underground http://www.infovark.com/2008/01/31/code-head/#comment-146 The Address Bar as the New Command Line « Infovark Underground Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:21:46 +0000 http://www.infovark.com/2008/01/31/code-head/#comment-146 [...] Why do we care about making things easier on our silicon-based friends? Well, one reason is that it indirectly makes things easier on those of us humans that give instructions to computers. (As a programmer myself, that’s a big selling point.) Another reason is that if it’s easy enough for a computer to figure out, then it ought to be brain-dead simple for a human to understand. As I’ve pointed out before, computers just aren’t very bright. [...] [...] Why do we care about making things easier on our silicon-based friends? Well, one reason is that it indirectly makes things easier on those of us humans that give instructions to computers. (As a programmer myself, that’s a big selling point.) Another reason is that if it’s easy enough for a computer to figure out, then it ought to be brain-dead simple for a human to understand. As I’ve pointed out before, computers just aren’t very bright. [...]

]]> By: Ben Tremblay http://www.infovark.com/2008/01/31/code-head/#comment-78 Ben Tremblay Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:43:06 +0000 http://www.infovark.com/2008/01/31/code-head/#comment-78 Know what? That's my secret the tech_docs. Point of tech_docs isn't for me to understand the sytem. Though I need to understand the system to write good tech_docs. But engineers' tech_docs are very much for them to understand. Or, more precisely, so that they remember what they're doing. It isn't likely that they'll forget what they're trying to do, though that happens, sometimes. Far more likely that they'll forget what they're doing. I mean actually doing. I mean <i>right now at this moment</i> along with <i>when we made that decision yesterday afternoon</i>. Is why their tech_docs please themselves so often, and please me so rarely. Which pleases them not at all. When their tech_docs reflect what they're doing, they can use that to see when they're wrong. When they're doing something wrong, and their tech_docs reflect that, and they don't realize it, that's when they've forgotten what they were trying to do. Which is when I step in. Which is when they get pissed off. Which is when I table the tech_docs I got them to write. Which pleases them not at all. But at least they see the disconnect. Which is what I'm there to do. I'm not an engineer. But I can see there's something amiss when yesterday Engineer A said F[l,m,n]=42 and today he's saying it 7X10E20 (Which, BTW, is our latest estimate on the number of star-like bodies in the heavens.) It's not about pleasing engineers. Or writing pleasant fiction. It's about saying what's so in any moment. Which is invariably 42. As it should be. ==30== Know what?
That’s my secret the tech_docs.
Point of tech_docs isn’t for me to understand the sytem.
Though I need to understand the system to write good tech_docs.
But engineers’ tech_docs are very much for them to understand.
Or, more precisely, so that they remember what they’re doing.
It isn’t likely that they’ll forget what they’re trying to do, though that happens, sometimes.
Far more likely that they’ll forget what they’re doing. I mean actually doing. I mean right now at this moment along with when we made that decision yesterday afternoon.
Is why their tech_docs please themselves so often, and please me so rarely. Which pleases them not at all.

When their tech_docs reflect what they’re doing, they can use that to see when they’re wrong.
When they’re doing something wrong, and their tech_docs reflect that, and they don’t realize it, that’s when they’ve forgotten what they were trying to do.
Which is when I step in.
Which is when they get pissed off.
Which is when I table the tech_docs I got them to write.
Which pleases them not at all.
But at least they see the disconnect.
Which is what I’m there to do.
I’m not an engineer.
But I can see there’s something amiss when yesterday Engineer A said F[l,m,n]=42 and today he’s saying it 7X10E20 (Which, BTW, is our latest estimate on the number of star-like bodies in the heavens.)

It’s not about pleasing engineers.
Or writing pleasant fiction.
It’s about saying what’s so in any moment.
Which is invariably 42.
As it should be.

==30==

]]>