Re: AWS Coding Styles (and about boring plain-linear text files in the end)

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Wed, 19 Jan 2011 11:04:42 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
> There are differences in how chains of characters and chains of symbols  
> are
> recognized. Meaningful words are far easier to read. While reading known
> words people actually read only prefixes and suffixes. The brain
> automatically fills the gaps. Properly spelt words can be much longer  
> than
> arbitrary chains of symbols. BTW, this why graphical languages will never
> make it, because written texts have the advantage of 10+ years of  
> training
> on perpetual daily reading, while arrows and blocks do not.
Valuable notice. This may be confirmed: I know some ones expressed the  
need (and at least some have even implemented) for a text based version of  
UML (not ASCII art, literate UML). However, as already noticed in an older  
thread at CLA, diagrams has the strength or being two dimensional, and  
that help to embrace complexity. In this same thread, some one gave a link  
to a study which demonstrated that SPARK + graphical notation to express  
system design was the success keys for safety critical applications. Box  
and arrows seems better at outlining than text is (although outline with  
text is possible). We have a french expression which literally says « une  
image parle mieux qu’un long discours », which could be translated as “a  
picture tells more than a long speech”. This is true for some matters But  
to express the details requires text, and concrete implementation is  
required to express all details without a single lack.

-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.

“I am fluent in ASCII” [Warren 2010]