https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-power-prime/201409/is-emotional-openness-the-key-healthy-relationships
If you define synchronization it to be the key to good relationships, then yes, obviously.
This would lead to greater overall efficiency.
It would also spell the end of machiavellian schemes. That would be good for us not using these, of course.
No Unrelated to that rather dull novel/film called the Life of Pi.
The concept of nothing first came out of some brilliant philosopher.
Nothing is better decomposed to No Thing where Thing can be anything.
In many languages, the ultimate nothing is Null. Dev/null, null...
Null has nothing, can do nothing.
In some systems of logic, programming, trying to do things with true null gives exception is not allowed, because any attribute of null is undefined and yields undefined results.
Likewise, a null pointer exception shows that it is not only an object that can be null. References to an object can be null too. This mistake has led to many crashes.
Of course, you can always be explicit about nothing, if you want nothing to mean the absence of that thing, and you know what the absence of that thing means. This is called a null object pattern.
In others, the fact that something can be undefined is acknowledged and accepted, and a default behavior prescribed.
The ideal language would handle these problems gracefully and intelligently, aware of the context in which they are used, instead of just crashing
Nature is a very bad bad developer. The DNA code is totally unmaintable, the system is full of side effects and programming of features is somewhat based on random changes.
This analysis only pertains to the code part.
What does it mean to Code efficiently?
Least context, mind frame switches
Least file, scrolling switches.
Maximize both to find best method.
I believe the best way is to program by feature.
If you think about it, the way we, designers, developers and users alike, conceive of a program through its flows.
Flows are big, but they can be broken down into units called features.
Ideally, we would love to see features programmed directly. But that leads to redundant code which is also messy.
So what we want to do is trace through code paths of a feature. That is also the optimum way to read code and become productive.
So no matter how messy code, specs are, one can always straighten things out like this.
Of course, code can have side effects. This increases the complexity the coder needs to understand, often overloading their poor minds. In this case, minor refactoring, documenting may be required and best for understanding.
There is a pitfall of the evil side effects story. Event driven programming can seem like it is all about side effects. Nothing can be further from truth. Every event fulfills a code path required by feature, while allowing each kind of event to be handled by totally independent modules.
Feature is forever the most important. It is the why of developing applications in the first place.
Footnote.
I wish some CS professor could chain this up into a flowing story through development like I did here.
Why are things cyclical? A is the fittest.
Paradigm A is moving along. It is the best solution to a problem.
A hits an issue.
Paradigm B addresses issue.
B leads for a long time.
Tech makes A possible again.
People come to A again.
