4 ms·

Ridiculous. You're supposed to know what you're doing. He should stop coding instead and do something that fits his skills. When it's already too hard knowing

Ridiculous. You're supposed to know what you're doing. He should stop coding instead and do something that fits his skills. When it's already too hard knowing the units of the function you're supposed to know, then why does he think he's supposed to code in the first place? Bat-shit ridiculous. Of course people with low skills will be all over this, happily embracing it, but it's still absolutely ridiculous. If you can't even remember this, then you should not be programming in the first place!

aembleton 5y ago
Wouldn't it help other to learn though if it's clearer? As you have to label variables, why not include units? How does that hinder you? Do you label your variables a, b, c,...?
- gpderetta 5y ago
  Variables? Point-free programming is the name of the game!
- MrYellowP 5y ago
  Don't be ridiculous. You can't take my complain about this and generalize it. It's a function. You're supposed to know what the function is doing and the parameter it is accepting. Someone who can't even do that and instead requires it to be fully laid out in front of him should consider looking for a different profession. This just replaces knowledge with looking at things. It's not helpful at all. Imagine every variable in every function ever would be written down based on its type. Insanity! ... and yes. My main variables are q,w,e,r,t (DWords) ... qq,ww,ee,rr,ss (QWords) ... etc ... all sitting neatly in a cacheline. Those I use for loops and whatever else I need them. Variables that really need naming I actually name appropriately. Variables that do not need naming I simply don't. You'd be amazed how easy it is to read my code. It's important to understand that, just because someone can do something, doesn't mean he's good at it. This problem gets even worse when everyone just keeps trying to make it easier for people who would be better off doing something else. No, this isn't an "elitist" perspective, it's the perspective of someone who understands that constantly "lowering the bar of entry" aka "making everything more and more accessible" makes everyone dumber in the long run, because with each and every step one removes any need to actually think and understand what he's doing. Do you understand that?

aembleton 5y ago

Wouldn't it help other to learn though if it's clearer? As you have to label variables, why not include units? How does that hinder you? Do you label your variables a, b, c,...?

gpderetta 5y ago
Variables? Point-free programming is the name of the game!
MrYellowP 5y ago
Don't be ridiculous. You can't take my complain about this and generalize it. It's a function. You're supposed to know what the function is doing and the parameter it is accepting. Someone who can't even do that and instead requires it to be fully laid out in front of him should consider looking for a different profession. This just replaces knowledge with looking at things. It's not helpful at all. Imagine every variable in every function ever would be written down based on its type. Insanity! ... and yes. My main variables are q,w,e,r,t (DWords) ... qq,ww,ee,rr,ss (QWords) ... etc ... all sitting neatly in a cacheline. Those I use for loops and whatever else I need them. Variables that really need naming I actually name appropriately. Variables that do not need naming I simply don't. You'd be amazed how easy it is to read my code. It's important to understand that, just because someone can do something, doesn't mean he's good at it. This problem gets even worse when everyone just keeps trying to make it easier for people who would be better off doing something else. No, this isn't an "elitist" perspective, it's the perspective of someone who understands that constantly "lowering the bar of entry" aka "making everything more and more accessible" makes everyone dumber in the long run, because with each and every step one removes any need to actually think and understand what he's doing. Do you understand that?