|
|
|
|
|
by marcosdumay
1829 days ago
|
|
> Imagine if construction/aviation/etc engineers wanted their building/bridge/airplane to be whimsical and have its own personality. Are you scared yet? Are you aware that those things go through a design phase with the explicit objective of giving them a personality, right? Mechanical engineers have an habit of breaking that personality due to their profession constraints, so most airplanes lose the original ones, but bridges usually are built just as intended. Anyway, it's not like you can avoid giving your software a personality. You can't. What you can decide is if it will behave like a dull humorless thing, a holier than you all knowing braggart, or something people like having around. And yes, some software should have those two first options too, it depends on their application. |
|
Not really. I see quite the opposite; during the design phase the team sets the rules in order to guarantee consistency and cohesiveness and avoid any deviation from what has been agreed upon. This rules out personal or whimsical contributions, because by definition it would ruin the process.
> Anyway, it's not like you can avoid giving your software a personality. You can't.
I alluded to that, if you re-read my comment, but a software having its unintended whims, compared to intentionally trying to give it some "personality" is not the same thing at all.