4 ms·

Sounds like you are content to limit yourself to problems that do not contain more irreducible complexity or require more developer context than what fits withi

Sounds like you are content to limit yourself to problems that do not contain more irreducible complexity or require more developer context than what fits within five seconds of comprehension. That's a good rule for straightforward CRUD apps and single-purpose backend systems, but as a universal declaration, "it is simply bad" is an ex cathedra metaphysical claim from someone who has mistaken their home village for the entirety of the universe.

hinkley 2y ago
> is an ex cathedra metaphysical claim I have a cargo ship-sized suspicion that your code is difficult to read for reasons other than intrinsic complexity. You’ve found a way to explain it to yourself and excuse it to others, but you won’t always be the smartest person in the room. Also that’s not what was said. > more then 5 seconds to read and understand the high level goal of a function Understanding what something is for is not understanding how it accomplishes it.
- fasbiner 2y ago
  If you find compact language above your level of proficiency confusing, you can literally ask an LLM to explain it for you to trade efficiency for accessibility. You sound unhappy and seem to be lashing out, and your username can only be read as an allusion to a mentally ill would-be assassin. Given those, you can maybe begin to understand why your opinions are not credible as a contribution even in relation to other anonymous people. A small part of your comment is salvageable, though: > Understanding what something is for is not understanding how it accomplishes it I can think of at least one area I know something about where the 5 second rule fails - sometimes when working on a shader and optimizations for it, it takes more than 5 seconds for the person who wrote the code to describe what it's for at a high level. If even the person who wrote the code can't meet that arbitrary constraint, other people looking at the code for the first time have no chance.

hinkley 2y ago

> is an ex cathedra metaphysical claim I have a cargo ship-sized suspicion that your code is difficult to read for reasons other than intrinsic complexity. You’ve found a way to explain it to yourself and excuse it to others, but you won’t always be the smartest person in the room. Also that’s not what was said. > more then 5 seconds to read and understand the high level goal of a function Understanding what something is for is not understanding how it accomplishes it.

fasbiner 2y ago
If you find compact language above your level of proficiency confusing, you can literally ask an LLM to explain it for you to trade efficiency for accessibility. You sound unhappy and seem to be lashing out, and your username can only be read as an allusion to a mentally ill would-be assassin. Given those, you can maybe begin to understand why your opinions are not credible as a contribution even in relation to other anonymous people. A small part of your comment is salvageable, though: > Understanding what something is for is not understanding how it accomplishes it I can think of at least one area I know something about where the 5 second rule fails - sometimes when working on a shader and optimizations for it, it takes more than 5 seconds for the person who wrote the code to describe what it's for at a high level. If even the person who wrote the code can't meet that arbitrary constraint, other people looking at the code for the first time have no chance.