3 ms·
This seems to be a form of self-inflicted "nerd sniping", as defined by XKCD: https://www.xkcd.com/356/ https://www.xkcd.com/356/ It's fair to question the too
by jt2190 8y ago
This seems to be a form of self-inflicted "nerd sniping", as defined by XKCD: https://www.xkcd.com/356/ https://www.xkcd.com/356/
It's fair to question the tool in this case. As programmers we rely on our tools to provide abstractions that free our minds from thinking about details that don't matter. If the tool (or perhaps the culture around using the tool) insists that we deal with details we're not interested in or don't care about, perhaps the tool is not the best one for the task at hand.
- tomsmeding 8y agoIt's a fun tool though! There needs to be a place for fun coding in this world, and I'll bet that some fun has been had digging those rabbit holes.
- giovannibajo1 8y agoIt’s meta-fun because you’re getting fun with the mean rather than the end. To me, it’s fun to achieve a goal — programming to solve a real problem, implementing something that I can use or others can. It’s super fun when my program works, has no bugs, it’s cute and nice. To others, the act itself of programming is funnier than actually doing something useful, so that you can deep dive into the best way of programming without actually doing something useful if not a program complex enough to use whatever programming feature you want to have meta-fun with.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- xfer 8y agoThe tool/culture doesn't insist on this. One of the arguments for using languages like haskell is: it is easier to refactor your abstractions as necessary along the way, so you should just pick the one that works now, although the tooling around could always be improved.