Simple is as simple does (JEP draft 8323335)

[Brian Goetz]

I was all ready to dismiss this as just bikeshedding, but your clever 
up-front disclaimer convinced me to hang with you :)

I think what you are saying here is that we've set a trap for ourselves 
by claiming the word "simple", which, as we've seen, is subject to 
"everyone interprets it in a way to support their own preference."  Fair 
point; naming matters, especially when setting direction.

I am not as optimistic as you that if we called this "BasicIO", whether 
we wouldn't get the same arguments, but your point is taken: the goal 
here is not simplicity, it is about putting in place some very basic IO 
primitives which can be built upon, which do not depend on either other 
library abstractions (Scanner, Console, StringTokenizer), which are 
reasonably symmetric with respect to input and output, and which do not 
require explanation of static fields in order to use for the first time.

These characteristics serve both students and "scripts", in that they 
address the most basic console IO needs without ancillary abstractions.



On 2/20/2024 12:39 PM, Eirik Bjørsnøs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I acknowledge the following is easy to dismiss as just bikeshedding, 
> but please hang with me:
>
> Is labeling something as "simple" an effective naming practice, 
> especially in a pedagogical context like we are faced with in this JEP?
>
>     simple: adjective
>     1. easily understood or done; presenting no difficulty.
>     "a simple solution"
>
>
> First, let me be bold and claim that nothing in programming is "easily 
> understood or done; presenting no difficulty". Anyone claiming so has 
> clearly lost empathy with the beginning learner! ;-)
>
> Second, the lable "simple" suggest something about the things not 
> fitting into the "simple" bucket. If not simple, what are those 
> things? Difficult?
>
> Third, "easily understood" very much depends on who is trying to 
> understand. It may change over time as the learner gains understanding 
> and experience. Simple to Alice might not be simple to Bob.
>
> ...
>
> As any complainer, I'm also too lazy to do the work to find a better 
> alternative. But perhaps "basic" could be a starting point:
>
>     basic: adjective
>     1. forming an essential foundation or starting point; fundamental.
>
>
> This seems more stable to time, context and experience. Something 
> fundamental can be trusted to stay fundamental for a while.
>
> Thanks (any sorry!),
> Eirik.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/amber-dev/attachments/20240220/3010cd4b/attachment.htm>