11 ms·
We need to have a kind of a footnote in the pedagogy of software engineering, and engineering in general that states to avoid advice (“wisdom”, lol) expounded b
by ae_throw 3y ago
We need to have a kind of a footnote in the pedagogy of software engineering, and engineering in general that states to avoid advice (“wisdom”, lol) expounded by blowhards. You can identify it usually by the title - it’ll have a Grand Style that betrays arrogance.
Lots of people from GoF onwards think they qualify to preach bullshit ultimatums, thinking they have it all figured out. I don’t think any of them have any fucking clue what should actually be considered harmful, what should be the two/three “hardest things in computer science”, and other nonsensical bullshit they write. With apologies to Dijkstra who I do find to have been one of the shining lights of computer science and engineering but is often misquoted/out-contexted for that considered harmful thing. His letters do betray a higher plane of wisdom.
The more recent “what programmers need to know about {x}” as if the author has any clue is just the continuation of “I’ve learned this last week/in my last project and it’s the most important thing,” instead of the trivia that it really is, or shit that’s abstracted for us nowadays and only serves to make the author feel superior. Just fuck off with all of that nonsense.
Coincidentally, I’m going to go and read the Hamming book as it’s got tangible value having been written by someone who has done something worthwhile in their career.
- coldtea 3y agoIt sounds more like the idea you propose is "just do whatever" and that there's absolutely no experience those guys (seasoned devs and instructors) have. There's nothing particularly nonsensical about the "two/three “hardest things in computer science” (although it was said half in jest).
- ilyt 3y agoThe vast majority of advice like that is garbage and are trying to borrow authority of the few good articles that come out with similarly structured titles. Usually by people that mistake "the product is successful" with "the product is well engineereed. Or mistaking their rewrite from "the worst way to solve the problem" to "the second worst way to solve the problem" <hyperbole> for "this is the best way to solve problem"
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- efxhoy 3y agoWhat’s GoF?
- mathstuf 3y ago"Gang of Four": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four_(software)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Jtsummers 3y ago"Gang of Four", references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns.
- neuromanser 3y agoGang of Four: Gamma, Helm, Johnson, Vlissides; authors of Design Patterns.
- ravenstine 3y agoA significant amount of things said about computer "science" and engineering is opinions, more so than most believe or are willing to admit. That doesn't mean it's all wrong, but that not everything is universally applicable just because a smart person said a thing.
- greggsy 3y agoI enjoy the attitude, but sometimes people like to read someone else’s view on something, or to gain insights on something they don’t know anything about. Writing authoritatively might be the only way people can get people to read some things. I’m ok with that.
- esafak 3y agoI think Hamming's book is more appropriate for juniors. I found it rambling and obvious. How do others feel?