3 ms·

I'm 47. Following is trueabout many things not just programming. That things happen in cycles. Little is fundamentally new. The time your in now, your wxperien

I'm 47. Following is trueabout many things not just programming. That things happen in cycles. Little is fundamentally new. The time your in now, your wxperiences, are not all that different than previous peoples. That young people (definition expands as you get older) really are clueless. BUT, that is really really important. Without naive optimism and youthful exurberance (God young people have so much energy, don't squander that) very little "progress" would be made. Developement related. Process matters, a lot. Naming matters. Writing code is not about getting computer to do something. It's about getting that future developer to understand what this code is suppose to be doing. Optimization of software almost never matters. Optimization of developement often does.

damagednoob 8y ago
> Naming matters. Meh. I've gotten to the point where as long as variables are not named 'a', 'obj', 'thingie', e.t.c I'm good. I've gotten into enough arguments about naming that have turned into bikeshedding that I just don't care. I'll do my best effort at good names but I will go with whatever your review notes say. If I need to understand code later I'll rename as I go, do the code change and then revert them. I've generally worked on legacy systems and on any reasonable sized system there will be multiple names for the same business concept embedded all over the place. You just have to roll with it or be perpetually frustrated.
- mercer 8y ago
  I do agree that in practice proper naming is often absent and too much frustration over this isn't helpful. But that doesn't mean it's unimportant! I've found that when I struggle with properly naming things (outside of anonymous functions), it usually means I need to stop and properly think about what I'm doing. I've found this to be the case for both naming functions/methods and naming 'data' (which is why I've warmed a bit to the idea of explicit typing).

damagednoob 8y ago

> Naming matters. Meh. I've gotten to the point where as long as variables are not named 'a', 'obj', 'thingie', e.t.c I'm good. I've gotten into enough arguments about naming that have turned into bikeshedding that I just don't care. I'll do my best effort at good names but I will go with whatever your review notes say. If I need to understand code later I'll rename as I go, do the code change and then revert them. I've generally worked on legacy systems and on any reasonable sized system there will be multiple names for the same business concept embedded all over the place. You just have to roll with it or be perpetually frustrated.

mercer 8y ago
I do agree that in practice proper naming is often absent and too much frustration over this isn't helpful. But that doesn't mean it's unimportant! I've found that when I struggle with properly naming things (outside of anonymous functions), it usually means I need to stop and properly think about what I'm doing. I've found this to be the case for both naming functions/methods and naming 'data' (which is why I've warmed a bit to the idea of explicit typing).