3 ms·
I follow Ronacher's work, open source and posts and I agree with his arguments. This post remember me of Spolsky's one (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/
by nakovet 12y ago
I follow Ronacher's work, open source and posts and I agree with his arguments.
This post remember me of Spolsky's one (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm...) though. When you get to a point where you get to know what's under the hood and why it's not working the way you are trying to use, however in a majority of cases you are just fine and don't need to know what's happening under the hood and maybe if this majority is big enough that's just fine.
- PhantomGremlin 12y agoI got a totally different impression from the post. What I thought of was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_th...). In particular: In modern usage, this question also serves as a metaphor for wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or questions whose answers hold no intellectual consequence. Python will (or won't) be used for a particular application regardless of whether some contrived test takes 0.158 usec or takes 0.256 usec per iteration. This sort of misunderstanding comes up so often that there are a plethora of cliches for it. Here's another one: "Missing the forest for the trees.".