2 ms·
The point isn't better or faster, at least in and of itself. It's the higher level approach to system design. The balancing of competing goals, including things
by fc417fc802 2y ago
The point isn't better or faster, at least in and of itself. It's the higher level approach to system design. The balancing of competing goals, including things like less error prone or less effort to maintain.
You speak of programmers getting better over time. The point is to break that improvement down into distinct categories.
Of course they're idiosyncratic definitions. He's attempting to make a distinction which he feels is useful. He needs words to communicate that distinction.
- crazygringo 2y ago> Of course they're idiosyncratic definitions... He needs words to communicate that distinction. Generally people invent new terms by combining words, or call them programmers of "type 1" and "type 2" or something. Using existing term that are synonyms, and inventing a distinction between them, is unusual, unhelpful, and confusing. It's like me saying that sofas are always better than couches because sofas are designed with comfort in mind while couches are intended to maximize manufacturer profit. Huh?
- fc417fc802 2y agoI could agree with that in the general case. However in this specific case the words themselves seem (to me at least) to naturally lend themselves to the distinction. Coding itself morphed into a verb at some point (code and coding were both already nouns). If you consider what it derives from the distinction he's drawing makes linguistic sense. I guess the alternative would be terminology such as "writing code" versus "designing software"?