4 ms·

A better way is to cook pasta in a pan, adding water bit by bit as you would in a risotto (look up "pasta risottata"). In Italy no professional chef I know wou

A better way is to cook pasta in a pan, adding water bit by bit as you would in a risotto (look up "pasta risottata"). In Italy no professional chef I know would allow oil in the boiling pan ("that's what Frenchies do, because they don't know how to cook pasta without making it stick" being the common answer)

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
...if you want to fuss over the pan for 20 minutes. OR, add oil, add pasta, bring it to a boil and set a timer. If the result is the same, I'm all for that method.
- tomcooks 9y ago
  Your use of the word "fuss", together with that of a timer instead of being an active participant in the cooking experience, clearly explains what's the difference between the method i proposed and your way of dealing with what you ingest. Feel free to continue your way, if it' the same to you.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    Don't understand at all. Why is it a problem that I'm preparing the sauce (which actually requires my attention) while the pasta is cooking? Anything other than arrogance? Don't even try to make me believe that you get 'better pasta' by fussing over it. Its not the star of the dish - its just a vehicle, and 'cooking' is just making it softer. Not adding anything magical.
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      (I'm on your side; I want the absolute least of my personal time and attention devoted to food preparation.) IMO, tomcooks' comments aren't arrogance; they're an expression that some people genuinely enjoy the process of cooking and are perfectly happy (in fact, happiest) if they remain thoroughly engaged in the preparation steps. To me, it's a bunch of wasted time; to them, it's enjoyable. Replace "cooking dinner" with "computer programming on an unpaid side project" and many HN readers will understand that we/they enjoy it immensely while others would see it as a tedious waste of time.
    - tomcooks 9y ago
      What problem? I was suggesting you give it a try, honestly couldn't care less if you eat feces to save some digestion time while you're at it. Feel free to continue your way, bon appetit!
      - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
        Fair enough. I stand corrected.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

...if you want to fuss over the pan for 20 minutes. OR, add oil, add pasta, bring it to a boil and set a timer. If the result is the same, I'm all for that method.

tomcooks 9y ago
Your use of the word "fuss", together with that of a timer instead of being an active participant in the cooking experience, clearly explains what's the difference between the method i proposed and your way of dealing with what you ingest. Feel free to continue your way, if it' the same to you.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Don't understand at all. Why is it a problem that I'm preparing the sauce (which actually requires my attention) while the pasta is cooking? Anything other than arrogance? Don't even try to make me believe that you get 'better pasta' by fussing over it. Its not the star of the dish - its just a vehicle, and 'cooking' is just making it softer. Not adding anything magical.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    (I'm on your side; I want the absolute least of my personal time and attention devoted to food preparation.) IMO, tomcooks' comments aren't arrogance; they're an expression that some people genuinely enjoy the process of cooking and are perfectly happy (in fact, happiest) if they remain thoroughly engaged in the preparation steps. To me, it's a bunch of wasted time; to them, it's enjoyable. Replace "cooking dinner" with "computer programming on an unpaid side project" and many HN readers will understand that we/they enjoy it immensely while others would see it as a tedious waste of time.
  - tomcooks 9y ago
    What problem? I was suggesting you give it a try, honestly couldn't care less if you eat feces to save some digestion time while you're at it. Feel free to continue your way, bon appetit!
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      Fair enough. I stand corrected.