4 ms·

I believe that corresponds with comfortable familiarity with and proper use of one's tools. I view a non-touch-typing hacker/coder much like a carpenter who dr

I believe that corresponds with comfortable familiarity with and proper use of one's tools. I view a non-touch-typing hacker/coder much like a carpenter who drives nails using a hammer's handle. (The inevitable reaction from both camps: Hey, what's your problem? I'm using my tools to get the job done!)

IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
Typing ability is an effect rather than a cause of hacking ability. It's not so that you can type code quickly. The bottleneck in coding is always the thinking time, or you're using an overly verbose language. Typing is important because hackers communicate with one another using a keyboard. I've worked with programmers who couldn't type quickly enough to have a comfortable conversation over IM. It's torture. If you can't type, it's probably because you're not communicating enough. Hacking is not a solitary activity, and it's mostly not coding.
jwilliams 18y ago
Not sure I'm comfortable in that analogy. If the carpenter who used the hammer handle only had to drive one nail instead of the regular fifty, then that might be totally worthwhile (Naturally, this would never be the case for carpentry, but it certainly is for coding).
- tom_rath 18y ago
  Both cases describe a person who has not learned how to properly use the most basic tool for their profession. How could that be excused?
  - jwilliams 18y ago
    Because I don't think typing is the most basic tool - It's abstract thought.
    - tom_rath 18y ago
      Only as far as the carpenter's is knowing where the nail goes.
      - 10ren 18y ago
        A good hacker can drive in 1000 nails with one blow.
      - jwilliams 18y ago
        Not sure I can really argue against the analogy - because you can take it anywhere. e.g. A lumberjack can rip through a tree, but a good carpenter can cut a piece of wood so that it uses the grain, there isn't waste, etc, etc. In the context you're working in, being quicker is never as good as getting it right. You could argue that a carpenters output is limited by their use of tools. If they can't nail or saw fast enough then no amount of carpentry imagination is going to help. What I'm saying is that I don't think this is the case for typing and coding. A coder could type quickly and produce reams and reams of really bad code - this is happening every day. Another coder could type 1 wpm and still produce something of immense value every day.
        Hexstream 18y ago
        "A coder could type quickly and produce reams and reams of really bad code - this is happening every day. Another coder could type 1 wpm and still produce something of immense value every day." Huh, ok. Now, if you take the 1 wpm programmer that produces great code and teach him to type 50 wpm, what happens? I claim there is no programmer in this world who wouldn't end up more productive (be it by a small or huge margin) if he learned to type faster. And given the ridiculously small ratio of effort to rewards at the lower stages (say, below 50wpm), saying it's not worth the effort is like saying buying more RAM or disk-space or bandwidth is not cost-effective today.
    - aaronblohowiak 18y ago
      I think your use of the word "basic" is amusing. I would agree that the most important tool is abstract thought, but it is not the most basic.

IsaacSchlueter 18y ago

Typing ability is an effect rather than a cause of hacking ability. It's not so that you can type code quickly. The bottleneck in coding is always the thinking time, or you're using an overly verbose language. Typing is important because hackers communicate with one another using a keyboard. I've worked with programmers who couldn't type quickly enough to have a comfortable conversation over IM. It's torture. If you can't type, it's probably because you're not communicating enough. Hacking is not a solitary activity, and it's mostly not coding.

jwilliams 18y ago

Not sure I'm comfortable in that analogy. If the carpenter who used the hammer handle only had to drive one nail instead of the regular fifty, then that might be totally worthwhile (Naturally, this would never be the case for carpentry, but it certainly is for coding).

tom_rath 18y ago
Both cases describe a person who has not learned how to properly use the most basic tool for their profession. How could that be excused?
- jwilliams 18y ago
  Because I don't think typing is the most basic tool - It's abstract thought.
  - tom_rath 18y ago
    Only as far as the carpenter's is knowing where the nail goes.
    - 10ren 18y ago
      A good hacker can drive in 1000 nails with one blow.
    - jwilliams 18y ago
      Not sure I can really argue against the analogy - because you can take it anywhere. e.g. A lumberjack can rip through a tree, but a good carpenter can cut a piece of wood so that it uses the grain, there isn't waste, etc, etc. In the context you're working in, being quicker is never as good as getting it right. You could argue that a carpenters output is limited by their use of tools. If they can't nail or saw fast enough then no amount of carpentry imagination is going to help. What I'm saying is that I don't think this is the case for typing and coding. A coder could type quickly and produce reams and reams of really bad code - this is happening every day. Another coder could type 1 wpm and still produce something of immense value every day.
      - Hexstream 18y ago
        "A coder could type quickly and produce reams and reams of really bad code - this is happening every day. Another coder could type 1 wpm and still produce something of immense value every day." Huh, ok. Now, if you take the 1 wpm programmer that produces great code and teach him to type 50 wpm, what happens? I claim there is no programmer in this world who wouldn't end up more productive (be it by a small or huge margin) if he learned to type faster. And given the ridiculously small ratio of effort to rewards at the lower stages (say, below 50wpm), saying it's not worth the effort is like saying buying more RAM or disk-space or bandwidth is not cost-effective today.
  - aaronblohowiak 18y ago
    I think your use of the word "basic" is amusing. I would agree that the most important tool is abstract thought, but it is not the most basic.