6 ms·

7 Fabulous Ways to Great Programming

6 points by imgabe 18y ago

baha_man 18y ago
'5. Still reading? I thought you'd wizened up by now?' http://www.answers.com/wizened&r=67 http://www.answers.com/wizened&r=67 wiz·ened (wĭz'ənd) adj. Withered; wizen. http://www.answers.com/wise http://www.answers.com/wise phrasal verb: wise up Slang. To make or become aware, informed, or sophisticated.
- silentbicycle 18y ago
  He means "wisened". "Wizened" is how you feel after getting all the way through Steve Yegge's archive.
  - phomer 18y ago
    Yep, it should be wisened. Funny enough, I think my stupid spell checker changed it on me on my last round of proofing. Can't trust these stupid computers, can you?
senthil_rajasek 18y ago
Summary - practice makes perfect. By the author's own admission ... stop reading articles like these and "Focus" on your coding.
- phomer 18y ago
  (but read my other articles, you know, the longer ones with more detail :-)
Hexstream 18y ago
I didn't bother reading more than the first few paragraphs. I expect the quality of writing to be a few notches above the level of speech. This article's style simply doesn't cut it, mostly because of excessive jovialness.
- phomer 18y ago
  Generally, I try to write more formally, but then I often get complaints about being too stiff and too long. The crazy bit about blogging is that there is at least one complaint for everything you write. Just proves that you can't make everybody happy. Still, I liked it :-)
- nostrademons 18y ago
  From about 3/4 of the way through: "In point of fact, if this whole article is "TL;DR" then there is no way you're code is going to be "great". Just ain't happening. It may be a hell of lot of other things, most of which are destined to entertain people on WTF, but it certainly ain't ever going to be great, and probably not even good."
  - Hexstream 18y ago
    It's not too long, it's too badly written (as exemplified by this "you're" among other things). There's none of Yegge's articles I didn't read fully once I started and I don't need to tell you how long they are. edit: I read the whole thing, it's really horrible how the bad style and orthograph makes it hard to focus on what's said. Speaking of focus, it's really ironic to get a big lecture about how important the ability to focus is coming from someone who can't even focus enough to write proper English (your/you're, their/they're, come on): "If you are finding that reading a multi-page blog essay is far too long, then you are clearly having problems focusing. [...] However, it's not all bad. If you've made it this far -- and it wasn't just blind luck in skipping text -- then it means you do have some ability to focus. It might just be a good idea to work on that a little, or possible a lot. Focus. Focus. Focus." Stylistic issues and common deformations (ya, ain't, cause) aside, here's the objective mistakes I found: "Get on with it", *you're* inner voice is screaming, adding in "just give me the *highlites*, the bullet points, the summary, dude. These things may help you if you've already had exposure, but they just ain't *the* got the knowledge in them. If you want the knowledge then *you've have* to get the knowledge, otherwise you know nothing. "Well, I don't want to waste my precious time read someone else's long rambling crud!", *you're might* be screaming by now. [...] But *its* impossible to squish all of the knowledge into summary. [...] Honestly, *you* a roving accident waiting to happen. [...] Ponder it, *its* not hard once you get used to it. If they're out there telling you otherwise, you know *their* just blowing smoke. [...] then *you're* problem is [...] then there is no way *you're* code is going to be "great" As a last point, I found him pretty unwarrantly condescending.
silentbicycle 18y ago
See also: Peter Norvig's Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (http://norvig.com/21-days.html http://norvig.com/21-days.html)
edw519 18y ago
1 Fabulous Way to Great Programming: Write Code. Geez, does anyone know the difference between correlation and causation anymore? This is just another one of those meaningless, "If a, then b must be true" posts. "I watch Star Trek, therefore I must be a good programmer." The only measure of good programming is the code you write and the value it produces. So stop reading B.S. blogs and go write some code.
- silentbicycle 18y ago
  To write good code, practice every day, forever. Or: Never stop learning.
swombat 18y ago
1 Fabulous way to have a chance of being a half-decent writer: don't write like this guy. Talk about wrapping a stinking fish in a giant ball of tabloid newspapers...
nazgulnarsil 18y ago
I do like the idea of bullet points as junk food. good analogy.
derefr 18y ago
Mid-way down the rant, I found this hidden gem, in the form of, you guessed it: bullet points. 1. good programmers write good code. 2. good code is neat and simple. 3. good code is consistent. Number two, especially, caught my eye. Let me see if I can generalize that. "Good communication is neat and simple." Kind of argues against his point, doesn't he?
- phomer 18y ago
  Oddly, good communication is nearly the complete opposite from good code. Your code should be boring, consistent and obvious. It makes it easier to fix that way. Writing should vary, be inconsistent, approach things from different angles, and often be redundant. It needs to be messy enough to keep the human mind interested; although too many little irritants like spelling and grammar can be disruptive. Some structure is good, but too much spoils the flow. It's a balance.
  - derefr 18y ago
    Something in my intuition says (though I'm not sure if it's to be trusted), that if your code has the chance to be any of those things, you aren't writing it elegantly enough. The best code I've seen reads as a set of revelations (macros) followed by one short, simple bit of glue that feeds library functions to them. (Of course, those building libraries might think differently.)
    - phomer 18y ago
      The stuff I've always liked is usually really obvious. For example, if it's complex tree code, you don't have to spend a lot of time digging into the details; what the code is trying to do is obvious by its steps. Clean, clear, simple and consistent. Boring is an unfair categorization. I meant it in terms of not being clever, but it is really an attribute of the observer, not the code. The best test I think is in how fast you can make a meaningful change to the code, without having ever seen it or studied it before. In a practical sense, that is the only metric that matters anyways. We write this stuff, so we can maintain it and keep it running. It's not the first version that matters, it's the whole life span.
griffee 18y ago
FAIL: "their" != "they are"

6 points by imgabe 18y ago

'5. Still reading? I thought you'd wizened up by now?' http://www.answers.com/wizened&r=67 http://www.answers.com/wizened&r=67 wiz·ened (wĭz'ənd) adj. Withered; wizen. http://www.answers.com/wise http://www.answers.com/wise phrasal verb: wise up Slang. To make or become aware, informed, or sophisticated.

silentbicycle 18y ago
He means "wisened". "Wizened" is how you feel after getting all the way through Steve Yegge's archive.
- phomer 18y ago
  Yep, it should be wisened. Funny enough, I think my stupid spell checker changed it on me on my last round of proofing. Can't trust these stupid computers, can you?

senthil_rajasek 18y ago

Summary - practice makes perfect. By the author's own admission ... stop reading articles like these and "Focus" on your coding.

phomer 18y ago
(but read my other articles, you know, the longer ones with more detail :-)

Hexstream 18y ago

I didn't bother reading more than the first few paragraphs. I expect the quality of writing to be a few notches above the level of speech. This article's style simply doesn't cut it, mostly because of excessive jovialness.

phomer 18y ago
Generally, I try to write more formally, but then I often get complaints about being too stiff and too long. The crazy bit about blogging is that there is at least one complaint for everything you write. Just proves that you can't make everybody happy. Still, I liked it :-)
nostrademons 18y ago
From about 3/4 of the way through: "In point of fact, if this whole article is "TL;DR" then there is no way you're code is going to be "great". Just ain't happening. It may be a hell of lot of other things, most of which are destined to entertain people on WTF, but it certainly ain't ever going to be great, and probably not even good."
- Hexstream 18y ago
  It's not too long, it's too badly written (as exemplified by this "you're" among other things). There's none of Yegge's articles I didn't read fully once I started and I don't need to tell you how long they are. edit: I read the whole thing, it's really horrible how the bad style and orthograph makes it hard to focus on what's said. Speaking of focus, it's really ironic to get a big lecture about how important the ability to focus is coming from someone who can't even focus enough to write proper English (your/you're, their/they're, come on): "If you are finding that reading a multi-page blog essay is far too long, then you are clearly having problems focusing. [...] However, it's not all bad. If you've made it this far -- and it wasn't just blind luck in skipping text -- then it means you do have some ability to focus. It might just be a good idea to work on that a little, or possible a lot. Focus. Focus. Focus." Stylistic issues and common deformations (ya, ain't, cause) aside, here's the objective mistakes I found: "Get on with it", *you're* inner voice is screaming, adding in "just give me the *highlites*, the bullet points, the summary, dude. These things may help you if you've already had exposure, but they just ain't *the* got the knowledge in them. If you want the knowledge then *you've have* to get the knowledge, otherwise you know nothing. "Well, I don't want to waste my precious time read someone else's long rambling crud!", *you're might* be screaming by now. [...] But *its* impossible to squish all of the knowledge into summary. [...] Honestly, *you* a roving accident waiting to happen. [...] Ponder it, *its* not hard once you get used to it. If they're out there telling you otherwise, you know *their* just blowing smoke. [...] then *you're* problem is [...] then there is no way *you're* code is going to be "great" As a last point, I found him pretty unwarrantly condescending.

silentbicycle 18y ago

See also: Peter Norvig's Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (http://norvig.com/21-days.html http://norvig.com/21-days.html)

edw519 18y ago

1 Fabulous Way to Great Programming: Write Code. Geez, does anyone know the difference between correlation and causation anymore? This is just another one of those meaningless, "If a, then b must be true" posts. "I watch Star Trek, therefore I must be a good programmer." The only measure of good programming is the code you write and the value it produces. So stop reading B.S. blogs and go write some code.

silentbicycle 18y ago
To write good code, practice every day, forever. Or: Never stop learning.

swombat 18y ago

1 Fabulous way to have a chance of being a half-decent writer: don't write like this guy. Talk about wrapping a stinking fish in a giant ball of tabloid newspapers...

nazgulnarsil 18y ago

I do like the idea of bullet points as junk food. good analogy.

derefr 18y ago

Mid-way down the rant, I found this hidden gem, in the form of, you guessed it: bullet points. 1. good programmers write good code. 2. good code is neat and simple. 3. good code is consistent. Number two, especially, caught my eye. Let me see if I can generalize that. "Good communication is neat and simple." Kind of argues against his point, doesn't he?

phomer 18y ago
Oddly, good communication is nearly the complete opposite from good code. Your code should be boring, consistent and obvious. It makes it easier to fix that way. Writing should vary, be inconsistent, approach things from different angles, and often be redundant. It needs to be messy enough to keep the human mind interested; although too many little irritants like spelling and grammar can be disruptive. Some structure is good, but too much spoils the flow. It's a balance.
- derefr 18y ago
  Something in my intuition says (though I'm not sure if it's to be trusted), that if your code has the chance to be any of those things, you aren't writing it elegantly enough. The best code I've seen reads as a set of revelations (macros) followed by one short, simple bit of glue that feeds library functions to them. (Of course, those building libraries might think differently.)
  - phomer 18y ago
    The stuff I've always liked is usually really obvious. For example, if it's complex tree code, you don't have to spend a lot of time digging into the details; what the code is trying to do is obvious by its steps. Clean, clear, simple and consistent. Boring is an unfair categorization. I meant it in terms of not being clever, but it is really an attribute of the observer, not the code. The best test I think is in how fast you can make a meaningful change to the code, without having ever seen it or studied it before. In a practical sense, that is the only metric that matters anyways. We write this stuff, so we can maintain it and keep it running. It's not the first version that matters, it's the whole life span.

griffee 18y ago

FAIL: "their" != "they are"