<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<font size="4" face="monospace">I was all ready to dismiss this as
just bikeshedding, but your clever up-front disclaimer convinced
me to hang with you :)<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
These characteristics serve both students and "scripts", in that
they address the most basic console IO needs without ancillary
abstractions. <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/20/2024 12:39 PM, Eirik Bjørsnøs
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CA+pBWhvAa_NB8bndDfyMk03Jtm9xEOoX=RCfDrY8K_=im4TA4Q@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi,<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I acknowledge the following is easy to dismiss as just
bikeshedding, but please hang with me:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is labeling something as "simple" an effective naming
practice, especially in a pedagogical context like we are
faced with in this JEP? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">simple:
adjective<br>
1. easily understood or done; presenting no difficulty.<br>
"a simple solution"</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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! ;-)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Second, the lable "simple" suggest something about the
things not fitting into the "simple" bucket. If not simple,
what are those things? Difficult? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">basic:
adjective<br>
1. forming an essential foundation or starting point;
fundamental.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This seems more stable to time, context and experience.
Something fundamental can be trusted to stay fundamental for a
while.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks (any sorry!),</div>
<div>Eirik.</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>