Published 2025-05-29
tag(s): #blogging #meta #programming #random-thoughts
When I mentioned how I broke the site a few days ago, I said "I want to keep the small, simple, manual system I use to maintain things". I was referring to the ad hoc functions and helpers I use to write and publish this site.
I received some email correspondence[1] about this text, edited below (keeping the parts relevant to this post):
[...] my goal of using a static site generator and some automation around it, is essentially so that once it is in place, I don't think about anything, I know it is working and I can focus on just writing.
Interesting that you took the opposite approach...
Their point is around the adjective "simple" in my description. It is meaning completely different things in our contexts:
So yes, both are "simple." I would maybe say that my setup is "simple and primitive" and theirs is "simple and automated". This goes to show that even a word that, instinctively, we all agree is...simple to define[2], can be charged with meaning depending on its context.
I tagged this post "meta" (and yes, I still haven't implemented tag navigation 🙃) because I see this related to a topic that I touched on before: the site and it's tools are poorly defined, not specified. And even the one adjective I used to describe it them can be interpreted (and was interpreted) in completely different ways.
For people that work in software, this is something we should all keep in mind. When a user,
or even someone from another team, describes a feature, they probably do it from their
context, and even """basic""" words are charged with assumptions
I guess this is a problem for any profession or craft where you receive requirements on what
or how to build something from another person.
When I started writing, I thought I would make a bigger point about how many of these nuances
are missing in today's polarized times.
But I am running out of steam, so maybe that will be a topic for another day.