You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things.
What should be the name of the query parameter specifying how many iotas to transfer?
When writing this proposal, I went with IOTA's own term, value. I've since come to think that maybe amount is a more user friendly term. So, what should it be?
Value
Monetary or material worth. An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
The term used in IOTA itself
Also used by various websites and services in the IOTA ecosystem, e.g. TheTangle.org
Amount
A number; a sum. The total of two or more quantities; the aggregate.
The term used by most (almost all?) wallets
Also used elsewhere in the context of transactions, for example by PayPal
My input:
value reflects IOTA's own internal naming, and is a more technical term ("the transaction's value")
amount is often used in UI, and is a more user-friendly term ("sending X amount of iotas")
So what it comes down to is whether to use a technical term or a user-friendly term. Whether to map to IOTA's internal name for it, or to map to the term users see in their wallet apps.
If IOTA users only see "Amount" and maybe never encounter the technical term value, they might expect the URI scheme to accept iota:<address>?amount=<amount>, which if it didn't would result in the value/amount being ignored by the app. There are way more end users than there are devs, so I think amount is what will cause the least trouble/side-effects.
Naming is hard. Thank goodness there's no cache invalidation to worry about :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
What should be the name of the query parameter specifying how many iotas to transfer?
When writing this proposal, I went with IOTA's own term,
value
. I've since come to think that maybeamount
is a more user friendly term. So, what should it be?Value
Amount
My input:
value
reflects IOTA's own internal naming, and is a more technical term ("the transaction's value")amount
is often used in UI, and is a more user-friendly term ("sending X amount of iotas")So what it comes down to is whether to use a technical term or a user-friendly term. Whether to map to IOTA's internal name for it, or to map to the term users see in their wallet apps.
If IOTA users only see "Amount" and maybe never encounter the technical term
value
, they might expect the URI scheme to acceptiota:<address>?amount=<amount>
, which if it didn't would result in the value/amount being ignored by the app. There are way more end users than there are devs, so I thinkamount
is what will cause the least trouble/side-effects.Naming is hard. Thank goodness there's no cache invalidation to worry about :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: