I'm also excited about two other students who will be helping me venture into new areas for once. I really want to branch out into some different stuff. They are.
Conversation
1. Looking at how we can use PL tools to help build prototypes from designs created by UX designers; I'm thinking some synthesis might go here, but we will see. They are first gathering intel into how existing tools work. The dream is to generate good enough code for a...
2
5
Oooh cool! Yeah yeah there could be some cool crossovers there. Curious to see what direction you go ing! In the past I've tried to explain types to designers as kind of like ‘systems of affordances’ (in the Don Norman sense) but I dunno if that is the best metaphor?
2
This is a super interesting question that I've been thinking about lately too. To me, I would say that types are not systems of affordances, but rather are the abstractions of the objects, or potentially collections of objects, needed in the design of the system.
3
1
These may have affordances, but may not, or they could be signifiers, etc. Keeping them abstract and related to the world I think is easier for non-programmers to understand. These way of thinking is very similar to the design process called Object-Oriented UX (OOUX).
2
1
This reminds me a bit of the way prototype based languages worked, like Self? Like, start off with a prototype of what you want, then alter it to fit your specific usage? Or something like that? selflanguage.org
2
1
Never heard of this. I’ll check it out.
1
It's interesting - not sure how much I like it tbh! I'm pretty sure Why3's modules have echoes of prototypes: why3.lri.fr/doc/syntaxref. Unlike ML there isn't a sig/struct distinction, nor are there functors - instead you just make modules through cloning and substituting.
1
1
I think you can make a signature-style thing by leaving off definitions of some declarations, that you can fill in later by cloning and substituting.