4 ms·
right, doing it would be harder because our tools are all visually oriented. But you could still describe the process in great detail to someone who could type
by betenoire 6y ago
right, doing it would be harder because our tools are all visually oriented. But you could still describe the process in great detail to someone who could type it for you, and your expertise is still there. When I play the piano, my hands naturally move to the notes I want to hear, before I hear physically hear them play the notes.
My point is, you don't type code and then look to see if it is right, you type what you know you want. Likewise, he didn't play a note to check if it was the right one, he knew.
(and of course, what do I actually know about beethoven's workflow, but if I can do it to an extent, I'm sure he could)
- alisonkisk 6y agoAre you saying you don't need to read or run your code to debug it? You just mull it over and run it in your head?
- betenoire 6y agoIn the context of the analogy to composing music, yes! The analogy wasn't the best one, I'm not claiming to be some savant, but absolutely. For a large class of problems, by the time I start typing, I know what I'm going to type. You can get away with a lot in music that you can't in code. The first example that comes to mind is "ped simile", which means "keep using the pedal in a similar style" without prescribing the exact mechanics. There will be exception for different musical phrases, and the performer will interpret this subjectively. You couldn't ever write code with "logging simile" in your middleware, and expect the computer to subjectively get the logging correct. Computers are much dumber than performers. A better analogy might have been writing code without ever evaluating it, kinda like you said, and yes. "hammock-driven-development" also comes to mind...