Harry Metcalfe

I think HAML is great

Mini post, mostly to pick up on some tweets about HAML that I wanted to respond to. But not in 140 characters.

HAML is fantastic. If you’re writing Rails apps, you should be using it. We’re working on making something similar for PHP.

So, today, I was surprised to see clever people knocking it. I asked what was going on and Markng said:

@harrym my largest objection is that it’s an abstraction over something that doesn’t need abstracting. (link)

@harrym maintainability involves people after you picking up code. People who don’t think learning another html syntax was necessary. (link)

@harrym good html is fine to read. Bad HTML not so much so. Maybe some are using HAML as a discipline mechanism. (link)

@harrym furthermore, the biggest reason for abstraction is when there is more than one output or source. Not the case with HAML. (link)

First of all: it’s not really an abstraction at all. I know that it calls itself one, but it isn’t, really. It’s just an alternative syntax. So let’s rename it to Html Alternative Markup Language and forget about that one!

You’re right that people’s unfamiliarity with HAML is a barrier to maintainability, but that’s true of any new technology. That it’s a barrier isn’t really the point: the more important question is whether it’s a barrier that’s worth breaking through. I say that it is. Once you have learned it (which is hardly difficult) it becomes much easier and quicker to write clean, readable, valid markup. Less stuff to write, less stuff to read, fewer lines than the HTML equivalent. Win.

As for using HAML as a discipline mechanism. That’s partially true. Then again, it’s true of compilers, too, and non-superuser accounts on *nix boxes, and typed languages, and object orientation. All of those are, among other things, discipline mechanisms. What’s bad about that?

If you can enforce discipline while also being easier, quicker and more elegant, haven’t you just made some better technology?

No Comments

Homeopath fail

I have nothing but sympathy for this poor woman, and nothing but delight that she’s pulled through her illness, but I’d really like to know how the Beeb consider this argument credible:

1. I had cancer
2. I had conventional treatment
3. Doctors said they’d done everything they could
4. I took a homeopathic remedy
5. I got better
6. Therefore, homeopathy works

You know what? Doctors are people too, and sometimes they’re wrong.

I mean, really.

1 Comment

Does Directgov Deliver?

Consumer Focus Labs have published an excellent analysis of Directgov. I went along to the read their report today, fulling intending to vent some Directgov-related irritation into their comments.

But I’ve been stymied. I have nothing substantial to add. The analysis is great — it says exactly the right things, and draws the right conclusions. It deserves serious consideration and I hope it’ll get it.

If you haven’t read it yet, do — and spread the word.

No Comments

Terror alert raised to severe

I read that the UK’s terror alert level has been raised to “severe”.

We are urged to be vigilant. But there’s no intelligence indicating an imminent attack. And nothing in particular that we’re supposed to do, or not do, depending on the terror alert level. I rather suspect that, if it ever goes back down to “substantial”, we will still be asked to be vigilant.

It’s almost like it’s… pointless?

Edited to add:

@glynwintle just sent me this:

Nails and heads spring to mind!

No Comments

Forensic Science Procurement

I just listened to this week’s File on 4 (available till the 15th), which was about the “marketisation” of the forensic science services used by the Police.

It began fairly predictably as critique of the privatisation of the Forensic Science Service, which led to the system we now have — where multiple companies bid for contracts to provide forensic services to the Police. The usual criticisms were trotted out: that markets are amoral, and that everything was rosy before the capitalists came along. But the program fairly swiftly moved on to more interesting and familiar territory: procurement.

It was the same sorry old story. Heavy-weight tendering processes. The granting of long contracts for huge sums. Contracts managed by staff with little specific expertise in forensics. Commoditisation of services where expert analysis is key to success. Bureaucratic intermediation between the staff who need things and the contractors who get things done. Sound familiar?

It seems that many of the problems that beset IT procurement affect forensics as well. I can’t say I’m surprised — the problems are, after all, endemic — but somehow it’s a lot scarier to hear these things said about forensic science.

I wonder how many people have been imprisoned as a result of barmy procurement rules?

No Comments

I met Bruce Schneier (way cool)

Being an unabashed Schneier fanboy, I think I’ll just come right out and say it: yesterday was cool.

It was a talk and Q&A with Bruce Schneier, organised by the Open Rights Group and attended by over 100 fellow geeky people. Bruce spoke about the future of privacy, from the current prevalence of data in all forms to the future ubiquity of devices and technologies that could severely reduce the privacy of the individual.

I was familiar with a lot of the things that Bruce was talking about, so there were no major technological surprises or revelatory principles in the talk — but I was struck by how optimistic he was. He said that, though these technologies have serious potential to cause harm, he was confident that lawmakers would get things right within a generation or two.

Central to the talk was the idea that privacy vs security is a false dichotomy, that the real struggle is liberty vs control, and that that’s a problem only good lawmaking will solve.

Among the highlights:

“Data is the industrial pollution of the information age”

“The real dichotomy is liberty vs control, not security vs privacy. Real security is liberty plus privacy”

“I see this era as heralding the death of the ephemeral conversation”

And on the idea that security inevitably erodes privacy — and that the underlying assumption that all security is information security:

“I don’t want to know who the guy sat behind me is, I want to know if he’s going to blow up the plane — if so, I still don’t care who he is”

Which, assuming you’re the airline operator, is very much the case.

1 Comment

Amusing graph fail from the Government’s draft IT Strategy

The Government’s leaked draft of their new IT strategy is now online, and among its delights is this graph:

Wondering what on earth it could possibly mean, I tweeted for some ideas:

Delightful graph fail from gov IT strat. What, I wonder, is 90% sophistication!?

And, well — people had some excellent ideas:

90% of Brits wear smoking jackets while they browse the web. Exmosis

It’s when your little finger sticks out while typing LilianBarton

Whatever it was, it seems to have stopped in 2007, so maybe we can relax. Or assume we must now be at at least 106.74%. pubstrat

Doesn’t matter – we’re kicking Europe’s ass by a whole 14%!! Yay us!! simond

All my answers are just too smutty to tweet paul_clarke

Got a good one? Add it in the comments…

2 Comments

Cripplingly, apallingly stupid

Council bans parents from play areas because they don’t have CRB checks.

The mind boggles. I think Henry Porter summed it up nicely:

“This is a fundamental breach of rights, but almost as serious is the offence to common sense”

Who are the people who make this kind of decision, and why are they so paranoid? Wouldn’t it be better if people with these responsibilities assessed the risks that we all face reasonably and rationally?

This kind of petty officiousness deserves no mercy. Mass civil disobedience is called for. I hope that these adventure playgrounds are inundated with an unstoppable horde of parents and grandparents, bearing picnics, toys, and healthy bullshit detectors.

Someone’s got to make sure the kids know that we’re really screwing these things up.

1 Comment

Does social networking give you cancer?

To clear up recent confusion, we offer the following as a public service:

www.doessocialnetworkinggiveyoucancer.com

2 Comments