3 ms·

It's really telling that git came into existence all because Linus Torvalds got frustrated with the existing state of version control tooling and went out on a

It's really telling that git came into existence all because Linus Torvalds got frustrated with the existing state of version control tooling and went out on a 2 week code binge to create the thing he wanted. No amount of discussions or dialog or code reviews or retrospectives or any of that helped resolve the issues everyone in the industry was having with the state of version control. It came down to one guy just getting frustrated to the point of sitting down and writing the dang thing.

SapphireSun 11y ago
??? Peer review is there to disseminate good knowledge. Nothing stops you from attempting to do stuff with things you've invented. For some things though, it's not necessarily self evident that what you did was good, and expert review helps ensure that randos reading the literature can at least trust it to make basic sense, even if it may not always be correct.
- sdegutis 11y ago
  Yes, but peer review is limited by the understanding, imagination, vision, and intelligence of the peers, who are not always peers in such aspects. Sometimes it takes creativity and individuality, as well as a little confidence, to come up with the right solution. But committees are not designed for that kind of solution. They're merely designed to analyze data and come up with a dry answer in conformity with "core principles", which is at odds with the kind of raw humanistic creativity you get when you just say "screw it" and go on a 2 week code binge to write the thing you needed all along. That's why git exists. It could never have come about through code reviews or other types of committees.
  - SapphireSun 11y ago
    Sure, but nothing ever stops you from publishing stuff yourself (unless you've signed e.g. patient confidentiality agreements or are otherwise prohibited by law). It just bears a bit of a stigma if the proper venue is a peer reviewed journal.

SapphireSun 11y ago

??? Peer review is there to disseminate good knowledge. Nothing stops you from attempting to do stuff with things you've invented. For some things though, it's not necessarily self evident that what you did was good, and expert review helps ensure that randos reading the literature can at least trust it to make basic sense, even if it may not always be correct.

sdegutis 11y ago
Yes, but peer review is limited by the understanding, imagination, vision, and intelligence of the peers, who are not always peers in such aspects. Sometimes it takes creativity and individuality, as well as a little confidence, to come up with the right solution. But committees are not designed for that kind of solution. They're merely designed to analyze data and come up with a dry answer in conformity with "core principles", which is at odds with the kind of raw humanistic creativity you get when you just say "screw it" and go on a 2 week code binge to write the thing you needed all along. That's why git exists. It could never have come about through code reviews or other types of committees.
- SapphireSun 11y ago
  Sure, but nothing ever stops you from publishing stuff yourself (unless you've signed e.g. patient confidentiality agreements or are otherwise prohibited by law). It just bears a bit of a stigma if the proper venue is a peer reviewed journal.