| HN Mirror

>I mean...we can also say that pigs are birds if you wish, everything is possible XD

That's right we can. What you're failing to see here is that this naming is arbitrary. It truly seperate from structure.

>Who in English would ever name anything as "A function that finds the x y coordinates of dogs cats and baboons in a picture". Does that sound like a name to you?

That's why your thinking is limited. Whatever we call a function or a thing doesn't have to be limited by your definition of what is a "name" the limit is placed by you not reality.

>Do you actually speak like this in your daily life?

Can you get it through your head? You speak in sentences do you not? You don't ONLY use names to describe things, you use sentences. So we CAN use a sentence to DESCRIBE a function definition. Just because we call this description a "function name" doesn't mean we should be limited by the concept of what you define as a "name"

>"Please can you turn on the device for remotely visualising entertainment shows, news and sport events?"

Fortunately unlike speaking our editors assist us with auto complete.

If such a primitive existed in your program and you just called it "remote" and left the reader to guess what the hell it does by looking at context... you'd be a really bad coder.

Call it:

    "controller_that_changes_television_channels"

And auto complete assists us with the length of the name. So really length isn't even that big of a factor here.

>Ah I forgot names don't exist: a name is a phrase, a definition is a phrase, a question is a phrase, an assertion is a phrase...can all be used interchangeably, they all serve the same purpose...ssure.

They actually do serve the same purpose. The purpose is communication. The problem with you is that you think the only form of communication in programming is names and context. I am saying you can use english sentences as well. It's that simple.

>I think at this point you're lost in your own sophism. Good luck getting out of it!

My argument? This isn't my argument. I'm not smart enough to invent this concept.

You ever heard of a guy named Donald Knuth? The guy who basically turned programming and algorithms into a science? Wrote the books "The Art of Computer Programming"? Well he invented something called literate programming:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming

Take a look because in Literate programming people create "macros" and name those Macros after Entire essays or paragraphs. Donald does not restrict the "naming" of macros into pathetic little snippets of poetic words. His mind does not restrict what you can "name" something, not like your mind.

Don't let the word "macro" confuse your brain... macros are the same thing as functions, just a bit more advanced. The primary difference is that functions are resolved at run time, Macros are resolved pre-compile time.

This is my point.

You're not trying to debate my argument. You're debating an entire style of programming created by Donald Knuth.

I deliberately hid the official name of this technique because dropping the name Donald Knuth would just get people to agree with his reputation rather then reason and logic behind his thinking. Given that reason and logic doesn't work with you I think a name drop is relevant here.

It's not my sophism. It's Donald Knuth. Good luck trying to resolve your sophism with a concept invented by Donald Knuth.