3 ms·

> I often set the bar so high there is no chance I could ever finish. The only projects that are attractive and shiny enough are those that are too big to finis

> I often set the bar so high there is no chance I could ever finish. The only projects that are attractive and shiny enough are those that are too big to finish. This reminds of a chapter in "Computer Power and Human Reason" where Joseph Weizenbaum describes the differences between compulsive programmers and professionals. > His main interest is, in any case, not in small programs, but in very large, very ambitious systems of programs. Usually the systems he undertakes to build, and on which he works feverishly for perhaps a month or two or three, have very grandiose but extremely imprecisely stated goals. [...] It is characteristic of many such projects that the programmer can long continue in the conviction that they demand knowledge about nothing but computers, programming, etc. And that knowledge he, of course, commands in abundance. Indeed, the point at which such work is often abandoned is precisely when it ceases to be purely incestuous, i.e., when programming would have to be interrupted in order that knowledge from outside the computer world may be acquired.

alkonaut 10y ago
My interest is usually more in some specific problem or algorithm. I'm curious how subsurface scattering works so I write a sloppy pathtracer just to act as a shell for what I really wanted to do - the complex algorithm. Once I get it half working I'm done, because the goal was neither to make a product or to finish even the subsurface scattering part perfectly, the goal was to code and to understand the algorithm. I'm not really in it to create, and that's perhaps the key. I write programs because that's how I understand problems. If I could understand something by reading a book or Wikipedia page then I'd often just do that and not have to do the coding at all! Doing this kind of superficial learning-through-coding is fantastically effective I must say.

alkonaut 10y ago

My interest is usually more in some specific problem or algorithm. I'm curious how subsurface scattering works so I write a sloppy pathtracer just to act as a shell for what I really wanted to do - the complex algorithm. Once I get it half working I'm done, because the goal was neither to make a product or to finish even the subsurface scattering part perfectly, the goal was to code and to understand the algorithm. I'm not really in it to create, and that's perhaps the key. I write programs because that's how I understand problems. If I could understand something by reading a book or Wikipedia page then I'd often just do that and not have to do the coding at all! Doing this kind of superficial learning-through-coding is fantastically effective I must say.