namark @namark@qoto.org

@leip4Ier@infosec.exchange I can't answer you question about best languages today, since today's industry I consider pathological, but in theory, yes, there might form a language that would be considered best for particular applications, or even for all applications, just like today in mathematics certain fundamentals, like algebra, are undisputed.

A few examples of funny titles in scientific papers that are considered deviation from the norm, only prove my point. They are interesting, because they are rare, and it is definitely not something people base any sort of decisions on.

You can never be perfect at being understood, so if you are trying your best you will avoid puns or jokes in technical writing. If you are not trying you best, then well, those who do will displace you in free market (not what we have now).

I don't think programming is closer to linguistics, as there are no objective measures of performance of natural languages. We did not invent natural languages to be fit for any purpose. They are phenomena we study, just like any other. I'm sure any linguist will agree that language is a mystery, while there is nothing mysterious in programming languages by design.

The rules of IT are not that different. The stakes are different, yes, (which coincidentally is also the only meaningful stance people take aganst free software, though in slightly different wording), "nobody will die if the program crashes or freezes", though this is becoming less and less true.

Tools used to make games are no different from tools used to make anything else. Game engines are either marketing or copyright abuse, and I would much prefer they didn't exist, though that's beside the point. Even if a tool is made specifically for the game industry it should still adhere to quality standards, just like tools made for movie industry, or confectionery. Even games themselves as programs should be treated the same way. I don't want my entire system to crash just because I pressed the wrong button in the wrong game. We would still make our little artsy games that might even intentionally crash the system as a joke, and share them with friends, but not deploy them at industrial scale and make a business out of it.

Microsoft is also all marketing and copyright abuse, they don't adhere to any standards.

@leip4Ier@infosec.exchange Well, fun is subjective, and while it can be synonymous with good in some contexts (like art), in general, objectively, it isn't. You might have lot of fun doing things that are not objectively good. Some horrible people (like me) might have lot of fun doing bad things. Some crazy wackos might have a blast at the chocolate machine shop (hehe, "blast").
The point of quality standards is to be objective, to be something that everyone agrees is good. I didn't mean people doing things for fun is an issue in the industry, I'm just saying that such an approach is only feasible in an industry that has all the issues we have now, and if we adopt it as a principle, we will be relying on those issues existing, and then maybe even supporting them.

Have as much fun as you want with puns in docs, or even code, as long as you understand why there are no puns in electric circuit diagrams, manuals or component lists for most products/services in proper industries or science (perhaps also noticing how they are instead widely used in marketing), and that some day you'll have to live up to similar standards. Better yet, if you will, strive for it.

@leip4Ier@infosec.exchange I don't know what kubernetes is, and I'm not saying you or I can single handedly change the status quo of the industry. I was arguing against the principle of "just doing it for fun" and I think my analogy worked out quite well. My point is that that principle will not survive in a "real" industry. The only thing stopping our industry from becoming one with the usual free market competition that would naturally set standards is proprietary software monopolies and the culture they have established, where everyone is a manufacturer of their own obscure product, aiming to established their own little monopoly on said product through copyright or marketing, and where no local independent businesses, serving the public as professionals, exist. Free market on monopolies one might call it, which is entirely pathological. As long as we understands this reality, no individual can be blamed for just dealing with it at the moment, but if we make this our philosophy we might find ourselves, willingly or not, advocating for what we ourselves consider wrong.

@leip4Ier@infosec.exchange You are stretching the analogy. Your choice of technology stack affects the end result much more than you imply. It's more like using the wrong size wrench cause it's your favorite wrench, it will work but it will wreck the nut, or putting threaded bolt where a smooth pin should have been, cause you love bolts, again would work, but with long term consequences. A customer will never notice these things, but a good mechanic will and will alert the customer.

Yes a customer will notice the server going down, but exactly how often and for how long must it happen for them to consider a different service provider or product? That should be a standard set by the industry. I was exaggerating this with the chocolate analogy.

Yes we don't know anything about how cars are manufactured, and we can only know something if we go to a local independent machine shop and ask for advice, and they must be very critical, both of the work of manufacturers and other independent machine shops, upwards to tools used, because there are not many things out there that have no reason and no consequences and are just different for the fun of it, and those few thing that are, in normal industries are left to hobbyists or dedicated R&D teams, and if they happen to stumble upon something of objective value, it might eventually make it into the industry after years of scrutiny. In our industry you just disable a couple of "tests" to get it "green" and ship.

@leip4Ier@infosec.exchange I didn't mean bribing either. It's up to the professionals to set the standard of satisfaction. If all mechanics told people that the only point of taking your car to a machine shop is to eat some chocolate and pray, and that cars just randomly explode sometimes, and that there is nothing that can be done about that, then people would happily adhere. You are responsible for being critical of others and setting the quality standard by telling your customers and friends to not go to the chocolate machine shop. You don't just shrug and go "well, it must be fun for them, and as long as it makes you happy, I have nothing against it".

@leip4Ier@infosec.exchange Makes me imagine a machine shop team deciding that they're going to use tools made out of chocolate cause it's fun, doing nothing of worth, breaking the tools, and feeding the broken pieces to the customers to keep them "satisfied". You can only get away with such a philosophy cause of the state our industry is in: primarily marketing and pop culture, without any objective quality standards. Now, I wouldn't blame anyone for playing the game by the rules, but I would urge everyone to not rely on them, since sooner or later, and preferably sooner, we will have to fix this mess.