3 ms·
> exploring new CS ideas and techniques The point is, this isn't a "new CS idea and technique" - in fact, this technique is as old as computer UI's themselves.
by mmjaa 9y ago
> exploring new CS ideas and techniques
The point is, this isn't a "new CS idea and technique" - in fact, this technique is as old as computer UI's themselves.
I have no idea how old this developer is, my only issue is that there is a re-invention of terminology and a whole new ontology being defined here, for something that has been a stock-standard CompSci concept for decades.
Its one thing to call me out as a grumpy old fart "not on my lawn"-ist - but its another thing to call out people who constantly re-invent the wheel and give it a new coat of paint, too. That is really my only motivation: to indicate that there is very little to be gained, productively, from ignoring the lessons of the past, "re-discovering" something, then slapping a new label on it. This doesn't do our industry any good - yet the practice is rampant. It seems, ever generation of CompSci graduates or so, someone gets the idea to invent something cool, which they've never heard of before, and proclaim that it is a unique insight into the field - whereas the fact is, its just a new coat of paint over an empty hole where the understanding should be.
We go through this psychosis every 4 or 5 years or so, in the computer world - so many times, we've re-invented the wheel and given it a new lick o' paint, calling it cool. I would, personally, like to see a bit more care given to this aspect of things by newcomers to this field - and rest assured, you can sit on my lawn as long as you cut it first.
- pettyAF888 9y agoWhat a petty thing to get uptight about. This is how humanity works. Language is invented and re-invented for personal needs. This person isn't making anything that matters. They'll familiarizing themselves with a new landscape and set of terms. The reality is, at least partially, they ARE having a unique insight into the field FOR THEM. That is, again, HOW HUMANS LEARN. But sure, go on and extrapolate this specific situation into a generalized notion within the industry, based upon your anecdotal experiences. Cause there is a field and there are rigid terms that define what you seem to be talking about. But you're using them all wrong. How dare you. > It seems, ever generation of CompSci graduates or so, someone gets the idea to invent something cool, which they've never heard of before, and proclaim that it is a unique insight into the field - whereas the fact is, its just a new coat of paint over an empty hole where the understanding should be. So what? It sounds like you're less interested in rigor in a general sense, and more interested in everyone talking to your understanding. Formality only matters in critical applications, IMO. Medical equipment, rockets, bridges, and the software tools we use to design those. We go through a psychosis like YOURS all the time. "Previous generations thinks the next generation is beholden to THEIR TRADITIONS -- literal or figurative." Maybe you should stop considering every Medium and blog post where someone is all "All I made this new thing!" so seriously.