3 ms·
Try to look at a smart-ass solution and compare it to a good, solid, dumb solution. The former is A->"some-obscure-magic"->D, while the latter would be like "A-
by sklogic 10y ago
Try to look at a smart-ass solution and compare it to a good, solid, dumb solution. The former is A->"some-obscure-magic"->D, while the latter would be like "A->B->C->D" with each step explained in an ELI5 style. No matter what, I'd always prefer the second option.
- girvo 10y agoAre you a python programmer? :) My coworker is, and he bangs the same drum. I agree with him on it, mostly!
- sklogic 10y agoActually, no. I believe Python is exactly the opposite thing, despite preaching some of the right ideas. Python is too low level, and therefore it invites obscure solutions that hides the real meaning behind layers upon layers of low level, irrelevant details. Exactly a tool for the "smart" people, pretty much useless for a reproducible and maintainable development.
- girvo 10y ago> therefore it invites obscure solutions that hides the real meaning behind layers upon layers of low level, irrelevant details And thats exactly why I said "mostly agree" with my coworker! This is my exact gripe. Basically its the same idea, taken to an extreme to the point where it no longer matches the original reason.
- sklogic 10y agoThere is nothing wrong with the idea per se. It's just implemented badly in Python. Instead of allowing unlimited abstraction, which is the only way to unlock this desired simplicity on all possible levels, they're limiting the abstraction and therefore increasing the complexity needlessly.
- Retra 10y agoYou're not talking about smart people, you're talking about "smart" people, who are clearly not that smart if they're doing such obviously stupid things.
- sklogic 10y agoI'm talking about the people with high IQ. Most of them are guilty of the same "from A straight to Z" mistake, unfortunately.