4 ms·

Can we just ban coding posts that have no code? They usually give you an illusion you learned something but are a total waste of time. It's like reading a self-

Can we just ban coding posts that have no code? They usually give you an illusion you learned something but are a total waste of time. It's like reading a self-help post on following your biggest dreams or something. The hard part isn't these big beautiful ideas, it's how to actually put it in practice. How to actually take something away and measure whether abstractions or duplications are more costly in real code??

threepipeproblm 10y ago
This seems like an anti-intellectual argument. For example would "ban" many of Dijkstra's famous numbered papers. I'm guessing you haven't read them. While we're at it, why don't "we" just "ban" - mathematical proofs without numbers - all criticism, as it's about art but contains no art - all papers in the field of music theory, since they aren't music.
- lambdabit 10y ago
  It's definitely anti-intellectual. But people who run this site themselves say they're interested in high signal to noise ratio. I don't think those are good comparisons. Better example would be a post about how to write rigorous math proofs and then not giving a rigorous proof as an example.
  - threepipeproblm 10y ago
    >> Better example would be a post about how to write rigorous math proofs and then not giving a rigorous proof as an example. Oh, you mean like some of Dijkstra's numbered papers? https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1012.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/E... I think "examples might help" is valid feedback, but the author has sort of provided a reason why examples aren't included: in small projects the abstractions are usually worth it, was my read. So while the author could talk about examples, he probably couldn't include then in a piece of this size. "Can we ban" is what has rubbed me wrong way. Who is "we". How are "we" "banning"? Does this just mean you don't agree with this post being highly upvoted? Or that you want to circumvent the opinions of those who upvoted with a "ban"? It is interesting also to think about the irony of an argument that one should work in terms of concrete examples of the subject matter, in objection to a piece that argues one should not always abstract things.

threepipeproblm 10y ago

This seems like an anti-intellectual argument. For example would "ban" many of Dijkstra's famous numbered papers. I'm guessing you haven't read them. While we're at it, why don't "we" just "ban" - mathematical proofs without numbers - all criticism, as it's about art but contains no art - all papers in the field of music theory, since they aren't music.

lambdabit 10y ago
It's definitely anti-intellectual. But people who run this site themselves say they're interested in high signal to noise ratio. I don't think those are good comparisons. Better example would be a post about how to write rigorous math proofs and then not giving a rigorous proof as an example.
- threepipeproblm 10y ago
  >> Better example would be a post about how to write rigorous math proofs and then not giving a rigorous proof as an example. Oh, you mean like some of Dijkstra's numbered papers? https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1012.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/E... I think "examples might help" is valid feedback, but the author has sort of provided a reason why examples aren't included: in small projects the abstractions are usually worth it, was my read. So while the author could talk about examples, he probably couldn't include then in a piece of this size. "Can we ban" is what has rubbed me wrong way. Who is "we". How are "we" "banning"? Does this just mean you don't agree with this post being highly upvoted? Or that you want to circumvent the opinions of those who upvoted with a "ban"? It is interesting also to think about the irony of an argument that one should work in terms of concrete examples of the subject matter, in objection to a piece that argues one should not always abstract things.