4 ms·

A lot of these points are opposites of each other, so much so that it seems intentional. We’re to maintain backward compatibility, yet eschew complexity. We’re

by et1337 2y ago

A lot of these points are opposites of each other, so much so that it seems intentional. We’re to maintain backward compatibility, yet eschew complexity. We’re to reinvent the wheel for ourselves instead of relying on huge dependency trees, yet new languages and frameworks (the most common form of wheel reinventing) are verboten. The only way I can think to meet all these demands is for everyone (other than you, of course) to stop writing code. And I gotta say, a part of me wishes for that at least once a day, but it’s not a part of me I’m proud of.

siev 2y ago
It also reads to me like the contradictions are intentional. Something about software today feeling samey and churned-out.
- abathur 2y ago
  I agree (and I think the ~point is that weighing and being thoughtful about how tradeoffs affect a given project is part of the process).
austin-cheney 2y ago
The most direct resolution to the conflict you mention, and this works for just about everything in life is: Just ask yourself: Why would I want to do that? When somebody suggests nonsense to you just ask yourself that one simple question. The answers is always, and I mean ALWAYS, one of these three things: * evidence * ethos, like: laws, security protocols, or religious beliefs * narcissism At that point its just a matter of extremely direct facts/proofs or process of elimination thereof. In the case of bad programmers the answer is almost universally some unspoken notion of comfort/anxiety, which falls under narcissism. That makes sense because if a person cannot perform their job without, fill in the blank here, they will defend their position using bias, logical fallacies they take to heart, social manipulation, shifting emotion, and other nonstarters. As to your point about reinventing wheels you are making a self-serving mistake. Its not about you. Its about some artifact or product. In that regard reinventing wheels is acceptable. Frameworks and languages are not the product, at least not your product. Frameworks and languages are merely some enabling factor.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  How idealistic of you to assume people will even be able to agree on what's a sensical and nonsensical suggestion. OP indeed has mutually exclusive phrases. If we ever get to the "extremely directs facts/proofs" then things get super easy, of course. 99% of the problem when working with people is to even arrive at that stage. I predict a "well, work somewhere else then" response which I'll just roll my eyes at. You should know that this comes at a big cost for many. And even more cannot afford it. Literally.
  - austin-cheney 2y ago
    It’s a personal decision assessment method. Other people are irrelevant. I really believe you did not understand the article or my comment.
    - pdimitar 2y ago
      To take a face value such a blatant generalization like "I really believe you did not understand the article or my comment" you might want to give an example? I did not find the article illuminating one bit. I agree with some of the criticisms wholeheartedly, mind you, but the article is just a rant.
      - austin-cheney 2y ago
        It’s a well founded rant because most people employed to write software cannot program, communicate at an adult level, or follow simple instructions. The comments here unintentionally qualify this assessment.
        Dansvidania 2y ago
        which of the three pillars you list above does this statement fall under?
        austin-cheney 2y ago
afro88 2y ago
It's a vent rather than a thesis. There isn't really any logic to it, it's just a list of frustrations said in a poetic way. In my opinion, vents are fine amongst friends. Catharsis and all that. But in public they stir up a lot of negative energy without anything productive to channel it to (any solutions, calls to action etc). That sucks.
- pdimitar 2y ago
  Sucks or not, it's pretty logical. Venting is not interesting to me if I am reading something on HN. Or if they are, it's rare. Also what you call "negative energy" I would often call "rightful criticism on non-distilled thoughts that have internal controversies".
  - ujkiolp 2y ago
    call it whatever, it distracts discussions away from the subject to the way it’s being said
    - pdimitar 2y ago
      Well, that's the thing for me: I can't see a subject or a discussion. Just a few random rants. People's memories get triggered and they start discussing. Kind of like discussing what's the message of an art piece.
derangedHorse 2y ago
One can eschew complexity without breaking changes. If the initial abstractions are done well enough, a lot of things can be swapped out with minimal breakage. There are also ways to keep existing apis while adding new ones. Outdated apis also don't need to change every time an underlying dependency changes if the abstraction is good enough.
enriquto 2y ago
> A lot of these points are opposites of each other, so much so that it seems intentional. The writing style is reminiscent to this famous text (not written in jest, you have to understand that most of these statements depend on a context that is for you to provide): "Property is theft." -- P.J. Proudhon "Property is liberty." -- P.J. Proudhon "Property is impossible." -- P.J. Proudhon "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." -- R.W. Emerson
sigbottle 2y ago
It's something I've been thinking about for a while. Most logic and language is worst case. You go all in or not on a concept. Purity culture probably arose from this (not just sexual, but in so many areas of life, we view the binary not as "bad vs good", but "at least once bad, e.g. polluted" versus "always good"). I mean I'm sure we heard a bunch of conflicting messages in our lives in many different areas, and we have rationalizations for why that is (oh, those guys belong to a different political group, different viewpoints, etc.), often to just save on computation power because how tf are you gonna answer these grand philosophical questions in an afternoon, much less your lifetime - it's very halting problem-esque. Nevertheless, we still make heuristics, live in the muddy waters, and live.

by et1337 2y ago

siev 2y ago

It also reads to me like the contradictions are intentional. Something about software today feeling samey and churned-out.

abathur 2y ago
I agree (and I think the ~point is that weighing and being thoughtful about how tradeoffs affect a given project is part of the process).

austin-cheney 2y ago

The most direct resolution to the conflict you mention, and this works for just about everything in life is: Just ask yourself: Why would I want to do that? When somebody suggests nonsense to you just ask yourself that one simple question. The answers is always, and I mean ALWAYS, one of these three things: * evidence * ethos, like: laws, security protocols, or religious beliefs * narcissism At that point its just a matter of extremely direct facts/proofs or process of elimination thereof. In the case of bad programmers the answer is almost universally some unspoken notion of comfort/anxiety, which falls under narcissism. That makes sense because if a person cannot perform their job without, fill in the blank here, they will defend their position using bias, logical fallacies they take to heart, social manipulation, shifting emotion, and other nonstarters. As to your point about reinventing wheels you are making a self-serving mistake. Its not about you. Its about some artifact or product. In that regard reinventing wheels is acceptable. Frameworks and languages are not the product, at least not your product. Frameworks and languages are merely some enabling factor.

pdimitar 2y ago
How idealistic of you to assume people will even be able to agree on what's a sensical and nonsensical suggestion. OP indeed has mutually exclusive phrases. If we ever get to the "extremely directs facts/proofs" then things get super easy, of course. 99% of the problem when working with people is to even arrive at that stage. I predict a "well, work somewhere else then" response which I'll just roll my eyes at. You should know that this comes at a big cost for many. And even more cannot afford it. Literally.
- austin-cheney 2y ago
  It’s a personal decision assessment method. Other people are irrelevant. I really believe you did not understand the article or my comment.
  - pdimitar 2y ago
    To take a face value such a blatant generalization like "I really believe you did not understand the article or my comment" you might want to give an example? I did not find the article illuminating one bit. I agree with some of the criticisms wholeheartedly, mind you, but the article is just a rant.
    - austin-cheney 2y ago
      It’s a well founded rant because most people employed to write software cannot program, communicate at an adult level, or follow simple instructions. The comments here unintentionally qualify this assessment.
      - Dansvidania 2y ago
        which of the three pillars you list above does this statement fall under?
        austin-cheney 2y ago

afro88 2y ago

It's a vent rather than a thesis. There isn't really any logic to it, it's just a list of frustrations said in a poetic way. In my opinion, vents are fine amongst friends. Catharsis and all that. But in public they stir up a lot of negative energy without anything productive to channel it to (any solutions, calls to action etc). That sucks.

pdimitar 2y ago
Sucks or not, it's pretty logical. Venting is not interesting to me if I am reading something on HN. Or if they are, it's rare. Also what you call "negative energy" I would often call "rightful criticism on non-distilled thoughts that have internal controversies".
- ujkiolp 2y ago
  call it whatever, it distracts discussions away from the subject to the way it’s being said
  - pdimitar 2y ago
    Well, that's the thing for me: I can't see a subject or a discussion. Just a few random rants. People's memories get triggered and they start discussing. Kind of like discussing what's the message of an art piece.

derangedHorse 2y ago

One can eschew complexity without breaking changes. If the initial abstractions are done well enough, a lot of things can be swapped out with minimal breakage. There are also ways to keep existing apis while adding new ones. Outdated apis also don't need to change every time an underlying dependency changes if the abstraction is good enough.

enriquto 2y ago

> A lot of these points are opposites of each other, so much so that it seems intentional. The writing style is reminiscent to this famous text (not written in jest, you have to understand that most of these statements depend on a context that is for you to provide): "Property is theft." -- P.J. Proudhon "Property is liberty." -- P.J. Proudhon "Property is impossible." -- P.J. Proudhon "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." -- R.W. Emerson

sigbottle 2y ago

It's something I've been thinking about for a while. Most logic and language is worst case. You go all in or not on a concept. Purity culture probably arose from this (not just sexual, but in so many areas of life, we view the binary not as "bad vs good", but "at least once bad, e.g. polluted" versus "always good"). I mean I'm sure we heard a bunch of conflicting messages in our lives in many different areas, and we have rationalizations for why that is (oh, those guys belong to a different political group, different viewpoints, etc.), often to just save on computation power because how tf are you gonna answer these grand philosophical questions in an afternoon, much less your lifetime - it's very halting problem-esque. Nevertheless, we still make heuristics, live in the muddy waters, and live.