4 ms·

What, you expect us to read the article to derive the lessons contained therein? What lunacy is this?!

mattmanser 14y ago
I read the article. 3 times in the end. I now realise quite a lot of it was meant to be sarcastic from your other comments. Which clarifies a lot of your points. I'm a brit and employ the humour myself a lot. But it really doesn't work online or in texts or in emails. Really doesn't work. I'm sure your story works well in the pub because you're there to embellish, explain and make obvious which bits are jokes and which aren't. Online, it's a real mess, it's actually two stories and it's very confusing. Story 1 - We started with a HTTP API and the end of the story is we ended up connecting directly to the DB. No explanation why the initial decision was made, seems to make no sense. This initial decision and final revelation is actually totally moot to story 2. Story 2 - To try and 'fix' performance problems with the opening of story 1, you went down a rabbit hole of fixing the problem in front of you. This led to hilarious craziness. Understandable and I think this was actually supposed to be the main thrust of the story, but your opening was about a completely different story. You also veer off those two stories a lot, constantly digressing into minor plots without any good reason. So not only did I read 'so, there's this tortoise and there's a hare, detail, detail, detail, and so it turned out, the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes!', but I'm also wondering where all the minor plot points are taking me, which is pretty much nowhere. They were clarifications that don't clarify at all, they just distract.
- opminion 14y ago
  but your opening was about a completely different story The second paragraph starts with: "It’s a parable about what happens when you’re always solving the problem right in front of you rather than questioning whether this is a problem you actually need to be solving."

I read the article. 3 times in the end. I now realise quite a lot of it was meant to be sarcastic from your other comments. Which clarifies a lot of your points. I'm a brit and employ the humour myself a lot. But it really doesn't work online or in texts or in emails. Really doesn't work. I'm sure your story works well in the pub because you're there to embellish, explain and make obvious which bits are jokes and which aren't. Online, it's a real mess, it's actually two stories and it's very confusing. Story 1 - We started with a HTTP API and the end of the story is we ended up connecting directly to the DB. No explanation why the initial decision was made, seems to make no sense. This initial decision and final revelation is actually totally moot to story 2. Story 2 - To try and 'fix' performance problems with the opening of story 1, you went down a rabbit hole of fixing the problem in front of you. This led to hilarious craziness. Understandable and I think this was actually supposed to be the main thrust of the story, but your opening was about a completely different story. You also veer off those two stories a lot, constantly digressing into minor plots without any good reason. So not only did I read 'so, there's this tortoise and there's a hare, detail, detail, detail, and so it turned out, the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes!', but I'm also wondering where all the minor plot points are taking me, which is pretty much nowhere. They were clarifications that don't clarify at all, they just distract.

opminion 14y ago
but your opening was about a completely different story The second paragraph starts with: "It’s a parable about what happens when you’re always solving the problem right in front of you rather than questioning whether this is a problem you actually need to be solving."