I think Joe's point is about the perennial discussion whether hierarchy is better than tags. It's as old as software or as old as people started categorizing things. Some early databases were hierarchical KV stores. Email clients and services go through that too, is it better to group messages by tags or have a single hierarchy of folders?
> English absolutely has namespaces
Sure, we can pick apart the analogy, after all we're not programing in English unless we write LLM prompts (or COBOL /s). Then if English has namespaces what would you pick lager.flat.alcoholic or alcoholic.lager.flat or lager.alcoholic.flat, etc? Is there a top-level "lager" vs "ale" package, with a flat vs carbonated as next level?
Hierarchy seems more rigid less general than tags but when it works--it works.
Hierarchy is easy in the physical world.
But what is crazy is since the dawn of computing we can store data however we want and project it however we want…and yet we still use hierarchy for file storage…like we still just have a filing cabinet of manilla folders.
Do you also want me to tell you what is the best way to foresee if a given program will halt?
The point is, bringing facile statements like "just make the right choice" adds nothing to the conversation. Some problems are hard and trying to short circuit the conversation saying that's easy just pick the right tool doesn't even apply here.
in many contemporary programming languages you can express this, too, by exporting some imported name.
> As of 2013, this 3-letter verb common in sports, theater & politics has the largest entry in the online OED.
The correct response? What is "run"?
English absolutely has namespaces. Every in-group has shibboleths and/or jargon, words that mark membership in the group that have connotations beyond the many dictionary definitions of that word (in fact I wonder how many words with more than three definitions started out as jargon/slang words that achieved general acceptance).
You cannot correctly parse a sentence without the context in which it was written. It’s a literary device some authors use. By letting the reader assume one interpretation of a prophetic sentence early on, the surprise the reader experiences when they discover a different interpretation at the end intensifies the effect.