4 ms·

Right. If I would have worked on this again, the first thing I'd do is come up with some way of automatically testing the code.

StavrosK 10y ago
Sure, but my point is that being forced to be more methodical isn't a good thing. Not needing to be methodical is better (because your tools will catch your mistakes for you).
- lttlrck 10y ago
  Doesn't that also remove the need for discipline? So the last vestiges of 'engineering' that so many programmers aspire to vanish, they can blame their tools, and the only development challenges are found in the tools themselves (perhaps already true to some extent). This sounds depressing.
  - na85 10y ago
    > the only development challenges are found in the tools themselves (perhaps already true to some extent). Definitely true on the web side of things. Bootstrap+React+Angular+jQuery+whatever else, minify, deploy on docker, done.
  - comex 10y ago
    See it another way: you can spend the mental effort instead on solving harder and more interesting problems. That is, if you can find harder problems to solve...
- flaviojuvenal 10y ago
  The best method is to automatize your methods.
- taeric 10y ago
  This is... What? I'm not all in on what I call "Poirot's doctrines," but there is almost always room for method. I grant that some methods aren't needed and speed is always of high value. However, speed of bouncing from beep to beep in your tools are not always faster than stepping back and thinking. As an example, no amount of fast feedback will help you complete all of the Euler problems.
  - Veedrac 10y ago
    > no amount of fast feedback will help you complete all of the Euler problems I find this one almost a perfect counterexample. The Euler problems are almost ideally suited to high levels of interactivity, in order to tease out patterns and solutions. By no means am I a massive Euler user, but when I was solving #555 I was sure glad to be using Python. If I had a >1m recompile time I probably would have just given up.
    - taeric 10y ago
      I contend that if you have solved 500 ish of those problems, you are a bit beyond the majority of programmers. Also... I don't see how any single Euler problem could have minute plus compiles. No matter the language. :(
      - Veedrac 10y ago
        I haven't solved 555 problems, just problem #555 [1]. Sorry if I was unclear. I also wasn't saying that any language would get long compile times on Euler questions -- they're far too short for that -- but that theoretically if they did it would cause problems. [1]: https://projecteuler.net/problem=555 https://projecteuler.net/problem=555
        taeric 10y ago
        That misunderstanding is on me. What you put was perfectly clear, so my apologies. It is worth noting that many of those problems originate from people that did them by hand. :)

StavrosK 10y ago

Sure, but my point is that being forced to be more methodical isn't a good thing. Not needing to be methodical is better (because your tools will catch your mistakes for you).

lttlrck 10y ago
Doesn't that also remove the need for discipline? So the last vestiges of 'engineering' that so many programmers aspire to vanish, they can blame their tools, and the only development challenges are found in the tools themselves (perhaps already true to some extent). This sounds depressing.
- na85 10y ago
  > the only development challenges are found in the tools themselves (perhaps already true to some extent). Definitely true on the web side of things. Bootstrap+React+Angular+jQuery+whatever else, minify, deploy on docker, done.
- comex 10y ago
  See it another way: you can spend the mental effort instead on solving harder and more interesting problems. That is, if you can find harder problems to solve...
flaviojuvenal 10y ago
The best method is to automatize your methods.
taeric 10y ago
This is... What? I'm not all in on what I call "Poirot's doctrines," but there is almost always room for method. I grant that some methods aren't needed and speed is always of high value. However, speed of bouncing from beep to beep in your tools are not always faster than stepping back and thinking. As an example, no amount of fast feedback will help you complete all of the Euler problems.
- Veedrac 10y ago
  > no amount of fast feedback will help you complete all of the Euler problems I find this one almost a perfect counterexample. The Euler problems are almost ideally suited to high levels of interactivity, in order to tease out patterns and solutions. By no means am I a massive Euler user, but when I was solving #555 I was sure glad to be using Python. If I had a >1m recompile time I probably would have just given up.
  - taeric 10y ago
    I contend that if you have solved 500 ish of those problems, you are a bit beyond the majority of programmers. Also... I don't see how any single Euler problem could have minute plus compiles. No matter the language. :(
    - Veedrac 10y ago
      I haven't solved 555 problems, just problem #555 [1]. Sorry if I was unclear. I also wasn't saying that any language would get long compile times on Euler questions -- they're far too short for that -- but that theoretically if they did it would cause problems. [1]: https://projecteuler.net/problem=555 https://projecteuler.net/problem=555
      - taeric 10y ago
        That misunderstanding is on me. What you put was perfectly clear, so my apologies. It is worth noting that many of those problems originate from people that did them by hand. :)