3 ms·
>I doubt even the most "get it out the door" shop in the world would want code that flubs the arithmetic, You're interpreting my example literally instead of j
by jasode 10y ago
>I doubt even the most "get it out the door" shop in the world would want code that flubs the arithmetic,
You're interpreting my example literally instead of just seeing it as one example of "correctness" that is a binary TRUE or FALSE. My point is that RG is not writing about "correctness" in that binary sense.
>, so I'm having a hard time seeing the distinction"
The NJ approach of writing user code to check for an error is also correct. It's just a different approach to "correctness."
If you only see "correctness" in binary terms instead of competing abstraction levels of simplicity-vs-complexity, then yes, you will not see RG's distinction.
- emodendroket 10y agoLet me get straight to the point I mean to make -- what is it that Facebook has done that is literally "incorrect" in the same way flawed math is?
- jasode 10y ago>what is it that Facebook has done that is literally "incorrect" I don't understand where the confusion in conversation happened. If I'm trying to dismiss literal "correctness" as a binary interpretation, why would I think it applies to Facebook? To make it more explicit: I don't think OP (paganel) link from RG's "worse is better" to Facebook is relevant. He interpreted RG incorrectly or he misremembered what that essay was actually about since it's been 12 years.