News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Eve: Programming designed for humans by eternalban on Friday October 28, 2016 @01:56PM (#12818789)
Of course names are important to us, human programmers, but the compiler doesn't given an 'f'.
Re:Eve: Programming designed for humans by posterboy on Friday October 28, 2016 @03:14PM (#12819663)
We use mnemonics, because we can't remember numbers as well, but to the compiler, addresses are pretty much like names.
Re:Eve: Programming designed for humans by eternalban on Friday October 28, 2016 @03:50PM (#12819994)
It's a bit more than that. Function names are precisely encapsulation of the intent of the function. And unlike comments, function names are not subject to rot.

Also addresses are not like names. As with names in general, a name can refer to more than one object. (Consider modules, for example.)

Re:Eve: Programming designed for humans by computerphage on Friday October 28, 2016 @04:18PM (#12820224)
> function names are not subject to rot

I don't agree with this. I think often a function will drift from its name if functionality is added to an aspect of its implementation or because of refactoring.

Re:Eve: Programming designed for humans by douche on Friday October 28, 2016 @06:59PM (#12821493)
And thus it's important to also rename things when refactoring, or else you get awful confused when your Foobinator(x) function returns you a Splunkinated value, or your FrobbleTheFribbets() call also woggles the wiggles.
Re:Eve: Programming designed for humans by posterboy on Saturday October 29, 2016 @01:52AM (#12822798)
>Function names are precisely encapsulation of the intent of the function

that's a rosy way to say, names entail a message.

An Address can also be computed, your argument is invalid.