3 ms·

I think it really depends on your process. If you're efficiently pragmatic, then maybe your work environment includes an IDE with tab-completion, project skelet

by ics 13y ago

I think it really depends on your process. If you're efficiently pragmatic, then maybe your work environment includes an IDE with tab-completion, project skeletons, lots of snippets, and plenty of experience tying together existing frameworks and other tech to achieve your goal. On the other hand, some people actually want to do that sort of dirty work (even in verbose environments) because they get an overview of every single thing that's going into their program as they build it. They'll be a little slower than the first person but potentially have a much better grip on the underlying architecture of what they're working on which is incredibly valuable as you move forward and make decisions. So for these people, faster rote typing could be beneficial.

ics 13y ago
Too late to edit, but if anyone reads this comment later please also see this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6908248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6908248 There's a neat part of the article that might better demonstrate what I'm talking about. --- > Because I was young, super-anal, and wasn't on SSRIs back then, I once asked Carmack why he didn't use libraries for common functions that he could share between engine revisions. Carmack's a super-nice guy, but on this one instance he used the "Well, I think my methods work pretty well..." defense. I never suggested coding style changes again. > But, really, for him it made no sense to share code, because, like a bee, it was just as fast to write new code. The template was in his head, he types really REALLY fast—why bother importing something? > Don't take this to mean his code was spaghetti—it was actually some of the easiest-to-understand code I've ever worked with. It has an almost indescribable quality of "obviousness." Like, you know when a really good teacher explains something, it seems obvious? That's what his code was like. I mean, OF COURSE there's a loop where you service the pending events and call a refresh on the UI layer.

by ics 13y ago

ics 13y ago

Too late to edit, but if anyone reads this comment later please also see this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6908248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6908248 There's a neat part of the article that might better demonstrate what I'm talking about. --- > Because I was young, super-anal, and wasn't on SSRIs back then, I once asked Carmack why he didn't use libraries for common functions that he could share between engine revisions. Carmack's a super-nice guy, but on this one instance he used the "Well, I think my methods work pretty well..." defense. I never suggested coding style changes again. > But, really, for him it made no sense to share code, because, like a bee, it was just as fast to write new code. The template was in his head, he types really REALLY fast—why bother importing something? > Don't take this to mean his code was spaghetti—it was actually some of the easiest-to-understand code I've ever worked with. It has an almost indescribable quality of "obviousness." Like, you know when a really good teacher explains something, it seems obvious? That's what his code was like. I mean, OF COURSE there's a loop where you service the pending events and call a refresh on the UI layer.