4 ms·

Carmack is literally the top .1% (or higher) of ability and experience. Not to mention has mostly worked in a field with different constraints than most. I don'

Carmack is literally the top .1% (or higher) of ability and experience. Not to mention has mostly worked in a field with different constraints than most. I don't think looking to him for general development advice is all that useful.

CyberDildonics 5y ago
I think the exact opposite. Read the doom source code and you can see that he didn't mess around with trying to put everything into some nonsense function just because he has some part of a larger function that can be scoped and named. The way he wrote programs even back then is very direct. You don't have to jump around into lots of different functions and files for no reason. There aren't many specialized data structures or overly clever syntax tricks to prove how smart he is. There also aren't attempts to write overly general libraries with the idea that they will be reused 100 times in the future. Everything just does what it needs to do directly.
- hackinthebochs 5y ago
  But why should any of that be aspirational to an "average" developer? It's like learning how to do mathematics by copying Terrence Tao's patterns of behavior. Perhaps Carmack's output is more a function of the programmer than an indication of good practice for average devs.
  - CyberDildonics 5y ago
    I guess I'm still not being clear - when you read John Carmack's programs you realize that it just isn't necessary to do complex nonsense. If you take a look at the doom source code you realize this isn't the cutting edge of mathematics, he is cranking out great software by avoiding all that and using high school algebra (literally and figuratively) instead. While other people spin their wheels sweating over following snake oil bob's pamphlet Carmack is making programs that people want, source code that people want and work that stands the test of time.
    - hackinthebochs 5y ago
      The circumstances he operated under while writing Doom were much different than most people encounter. The couple of people working with him on the code were all experts in their field and have a complete understanding of the problem space. What you seem to be identifying as indications of unnecessary complexity of modern development practices might really just be accident of circumstance and the individual skill of the contributors at the time. It is a mistake to look at the behaviors of the unusually talented few and see takeaways to apply more broadly.
      - CyberDildonics 5y ago
        He wrote doom by himself and worked with people on later projects. You can look at the source yourself. What he himself said is the exact opposite of what you are saying - because he was able to write things directly he was able to experiment a lot. He was able to get the easier things working and go through trial and error on more difficult aspects. If you would actually read through some of his work you would see that it a refreshingly simple way to do thing. No trying to hide that global data isn't global, no unnecessary indirection etc. etc. > What you seem to be identifying as indications of unnecessary complexity of modern development practices might really just be accident of circumstance and the individual skill of the contributors at the time I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. > It is a mistake to look at the behaviors of the unusually talented few and see takeaways to apply more broadly. This is the point you are trying to make but you just keep repeating it without backing it up in any way. John Carmack used his skill to do things in a simple and direct way. Anyone can start to imitate that immediately. There is no invisible magic going on, he just doesn't subscribe to a bunch of snake oil nonsense that distracts people from writing the parts of their program that actually do things.
        hackinthebochs 5y ago
        >This is the point you are trying to make but you just keep repeating it without backing it up in any way. Do I really need to back up the claim that what applies to the rare talents doesn't automatically apply to everyone? That should be the default assumption unless proven otherwise.

CyberDildonics 5y ago

I think the exact opposite. Read the doom source code and you can see that he didn't mess around with trying to put everything into some nonsense function just because he has some part of a larger function that can be scoped and named. The way he wrote programs even back then is very direct. You don't have to jump around into lots of different functions and files for no reason. There aren't many specialized data structures or overly clever syntax tricks to prove how smart he is. There also aren't attempts to write overly general libraries with the idea that they will be reused 100 times in the future. Everything just does what it needs to do directly.

hackinthebochs 5y ago
But why should any of that be aspirational to an "average" developer? It's like learning how to do mathematics by copying Terrence Tao's patterns of behavior. Perhaps Carmack's output is more a function of the programmer than an indication of good practice for average devs.
- CyberDildonics 5y ago
  I guess I'm still not being clear - when you read John Carmack's programs you realize that it just isn't necessary to do complex nonsense. If you take a look at the doom source code you realize this isn't the cutting edge of mathematics, he is cranking out great software by avoiding all that and using high school algebra (literally and figuratively) instead. While other people spin their wheels sweating over following snake oil bob's pamphlet Carmack is making programs that people want, source code that people want and work that stands the test of time.
  - hackinthebochs 5y ago
    The circumstances he operated under while writing Doom were much different than most people encounter. The couple of people working with him on the code were all experts in their field and have a complete understanding of the problem space. What you seem to be identifying as indications of unnecessary complexity of modern development practices might really just be accident of circumstance and the individual skill of the contributors at the time. It is a mistake to look at the behaviors of the unusually talented few and see takeaways to apply more broadly.
    - CyberDildonics 5y ago
      He wrote doom by himself and worked with people on later projects. You can look at the source yourself. What he himself said is the exact opposite of what you are saying - because he was able to write things directly he was able to experiment a lot. He was able to get the easier things working and go through trial and error on more difficult aspects. If you would actually read through some of his work you would see that it a refreshingly simple way to do thing. No trying to hide that global data isn't global, no unnecessary indirection etc. etc. > What you seem to be identifying as indications of unnecessary complexity of modern development practices might really just be accident of circumstance and the individual skill of the contributors at the time I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. > It is a mistake to look at the behaviors of the unusually talented few and see takeaways to apply more broadly. This is the point you are trying to make but you just keep repeating it without backing it up in any way. John Carmack used his skill to do things in a simple and direct way. Anyone can start to imitate that immediately. There is no invisible magic going on, he just doesn't subscribe to a bunch of snake oil nonsense that distracts people from writing the parts of their program that actually do things.
      - hackinthebochs 5y ago
        >This is the point you are trying to make but you just keep repeating it without backing it up in any way. Do I really need to back up the claim that what applies to the rare talents doesn't automatically apply to everyone? That should be the default assumption unless proven otherwise.