5 ms·

You know what HN hates more than "suggesting that minor distinctions that do nothing to help and are only kept in the world to prove you know them, are a waste?

You know what HN hates more than "suggesting that minor distinctions that do nothing to help and are only kept in the world to prove you know them, are a waste?" Complaining about downvotes. Yes, there is a reason the saying "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" is a thing. (Incidentally, it's a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson.) But, my experience, and that of many others is that having a consistently styled codebase makes things a lot easier when making changes later. Yes, there are tradeoffs, but, in engineering, we learn to figure out which tradeoffs are worth making. That's the point people are trying to make, and it is not a trivial one. Edit: also note the word "foolish" in this context. "Foolish consistency" would be taking the consistency principle to levels where it no longer provides benefits.

jodrellblank 6y ago
So we're agreed that consistency is a good thing, and that making things easier is good? Why are you saying it in the style of disagreeing? > Complaining about downvotes. I'm not complaining about downvotes, I'm accusing people of not reading. I think people saw my comment as pointing out the wrong "your" and reflexively downvoted it. I'm prompting people to see that's not the case.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Well, accusing people of not reading is going to net you downvotes. Tone does matter if you're concerned about fake internet points. Yes, consistency is good. Making things easier is good. Are you actually arguing for using "this" when it's syntactically unnecessary, or against? It isn't clear from what you wrote whether you're even taking a position either way (although, I do agree that you should pick one and be consistent about it -- I favor using "this", even when it's not necessary).
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    > Are you actually arguing for using "this" when it's syntactically unnecessary, or against? I'm arguing that C# should have made it mandatory or never required, so "sometimes unnecessary" is no longer a thing, so having to learn when it is and isn't necessary isn't a thing, and "I know when it's unnecessary and that makes me better than other developers" blog posts aren't a thing, and "I use it even when it's unnecessary because {other good reasons}" retorts aren't a thing, and that if we pushed for that kind of consistency universally, instead of admiring the cleverness of shaving 5 characters off a mountain of verbose C# or admiring the people who know when you can and can't do so, many things would be simpler, and that would be better. For example, merging "your" and "you're" one way or the other, because everyone knows what they mean from context and they sound the same anyway, or removing "you're" in favour of "you are".
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Well, then you should have literally written this instead of your first comment. Here, you've actually said something, and it doesn't come off as unjustified criticism of specific people whom you quoted. And, I now recognize that you have a point, which means you've successfully communicated.
      - jodrellblank 6y ago
        > Here, you've actually said something, I suspect that if you go back and read my comments, you'll see me saying that it would be nice if things were more consistent, simpler, and that "minor distinctions that do nothing to help are a waste". > Well, then you should have literally written this instead Somewhere between victim blaming and invoking the Just World hypothesis. You introduced the idea that I should care about downvotes, you blamed my downvotes on complaining about them. Then when I denied that, you blamed the downvotes on me being accusatory. Now you've settled on the downvotes being because I'm not good enough at communication, and now you have a reason why I deserve them, you can tell me how I "should literally" have behaved if I didn't want them - a suggestion only you have pushed. That's annoyingly smug with 20/20 useless hindsight. Yes maybe it would have been good from a downvote point of view if I had literally written something that took me hours to get round to framing, instead, but I didn't, and can't, and if the cost of that is downvotes then so be it.

jodrellblank 6y ago

So we're agreed that consistency is a good thing, and that making things easier is good? Why are you saying it in the style of disagreeing? > Complaining about downvotes. I'm not complaining about downvotes, I'm accusing people of not reading. I think people saw my comment as pointing out the wrong "your" and reflexively downvoted it. I'm prompting people to see that's not the case.

pmiller2 6y ago
Well, accusing people of not reading is going to net you downvotes. Tone does matter if you're concerned about fake internet points. Yes, consistency is good. Making things easier is good. Are you actually arguing for using "this" when it's syntactically unnecessary, or against? It isn't clear from what you wrote whether you're even taking a position either way (although, I do agree that you should pick one and be consistent about it -- I favor using "this", even when it's not necessary).
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  > Are you actually arguing for using "this" when it's syntactically unnecessary, or against? I'm arguing that C# should have made it mandatory or never required, so "sometimes unnecessary" is no longer a thing, so having to learn when it is and isn't necessary isn't a thing, and "I know when it's unnecessary and that makes me better than other developers" blog posts aren't a thing, and "I use it even when it's unnecessary because {other good reasons}" retorts aren't a thing, and that if we pushed for that kind of consistency universally, instead of admiring the cleverness of shaving 5 characters off a mountain of verbose C# or admiring the people who know when you can and can't do so, many things would be simpler, and that would be better. For example, merging "your" and "you're" one way or the other, because everyone knows what they mean from context and they sound the same anyway, or removing "you're" in favour of "you are".
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Well, then you should have literally written this instead of your first comment. Here, you've actually said something, and it doesn't come off as unjustified criticism of specific people whom you quoted. And, I now recognize that you have a point, which means you've successfully communicated.
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      > Here, you've actually said something, I suspect that if you go back and read my comments, you'll see me saying that it would be nice if things were more consistent, simpler, and that "minor distinctions that do nothing to help are a waste". > Well, then you should have literally written this instead Somewhere between victim blaming and invoking the Just World hypothesis. You introduced the idea that I should care about downvotes, you blamed my downvotes on complaining about them. Then when I denied that, you blamed the downvotes on me being accusatory. Now you've settled on the downvotes being because I'm not good enough at communication, and now you have a reason why I deserve them, you can tell me how I "should literally" have behaved if I didn't want them - a suggestion only you have pushed. That's annoyingly smug with 20/20 useless hindsight. Yes maybe it would have been good from a downvote point of view if I had literally written something that took me hours to get round to framing, instead, but I didn't, and can't, and if the cost of that is downvotes then so be it.