Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clojure is for Type B personalities

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities

#21

Post by n72 »

jorgecurio wrote: post #14

so much of this hit home. I'm disorganized. I like to just get at the meat of the problem. I don't sit on my hands shopping for programming patterns to use. I compare the process of creating software much like pottery when you start out with clay it's not clear what the end result is going to be. But as you play around with it something forms, and you impose more structure and clear cut features with refactoring. typ…

Yup, you type B's are glorious, righteous, and so often misunderstood people. We, type A's, are pretty much only good for writing unit tests.

Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities

#24

Post by such_a_casual »

WildUtah wrote: post #18

Robert X Cringely said that programmers are divided into nerds and geeks. The nerds do the wrong thing well and the geeks do the right thing badly. The reason computers are a revolutionary productive technology is that when you put them together on a team they don't do what you would expect and do the wrong things badly but instead do the right things well. I don't know how to use that story to write better Clojure,…

Link?

Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities

#25

Post by sanderjd »

slapresta wrote: post #13

While I understand the sentiment, this conflates up-front design with compile-time safety, and opposes the latter to "quick, spontaneous changes". However, I feel that my iteration loop gets tighter thanks to compile-time safety, since I don't even have to run my application and test it to find most of its errors.

Yes! It is so much easier to write a bunch of aspirational code when you know the compiler is going to tell you exactly why all of the stuff that can't possibly work won't work, so that you can go fix it.

Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities

#26

Post by sanderjd »

jorgecurio wrote: post #14

so much of this hit home. I'm disorganized. I like to just get at the meat of the problem. I don't sit on my hands shopping for programming patterns to use. I compare the process of creating software much like pottery when you start out with clay it's not clear what the end result is going to be. But as you play around with it something forms, and you impose more structure and clear cut features with refactoring. typ…

This is an extremely high-and-mighty perspective. If this is truly your worldview, you may do well to take a step back and consider upping your humility and compassion levels. Next time someone gives you shit for your eccentric decisions, maybe try really asking yourself whether they might be right and you might be wrong. Next time you see somebody reading up on programming techniques and best practices, maybe consider that they might be wisely availing themselves of learning resources beyond themselves, rather than "sit[ting] on [their] hands".

I do agree with you that the tendency to compete to be the most "right" is a problem amongst programmers, but I don't really see that it fits into this whole (contrived, IMO) "Type A" vs. "Type B" thing. I've seen plenty of bikeshedding amongst the organized and the disorganized alike.

Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities

#27

Post by jorgecurio »

sanderjd wrote: post #26
jorgecurio wrote: post #14

so much of this hit home. I'm disorganized. I like to just get at the meat of the problem. I don't sit on my hands shopping for programming patterns to use. I compare the process of creating software much like pottery when you start out with clay it's not clear what the end result is going to be. But as you play around with it something forms, and you impose more structure and clear cut features with refactoring. typ…

This is an extremely high-and-mighty perspective. If this is truly your worldview, you may do well to take a step back and consider upping your humility and compassion levels. Next time someone gives you shit for your eccentric decisions, maybe try really asking yourself whether they might be right and you might be wrong. Next time you see somebody reading up on programming techniques and best practices, maybe consid…

>The type A programmers are right that correctness and uniformity is important for building robust, maintainable software. The type B programmers are right that a tight feedback loop and experimentation is important for building simple, innovative software.

Almost early on in any startup phase, you want a type B to quickly build MVP without drama and then hiring type A to refactor it.

I've seen a startup get all worked up about structures, spacings, unit tests when they don't even have a customer yet, can't ship fast enough because of all these bottlenecks introduced by Type A architect.

In large corporation Type A would thrive where as the Type B wouldn't so I just don't see why you take what I said to the heart.

Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities

#28

Post by jorgecurio »

n72 wrote: post #21
jorgecurio wrote: post #14

so much of this hit home. I'm disorganized. I like to just get at the meat of the problem. I don't sit on my hands shopping for programming patterns to use. I compare the process of creating software much like pottery when you start out with clay it's not clear what the end result is going to be. But as you play around with it something forms, and you impose more structure and clear cut features with refactoring. typ…

Yup, you type B's are glorious, righteous, and so often misunderstood people. We, type A's, are pretty much only good for writing unit tests.

you left out that type B's are also disorganized and messy and I never said type B are glorious and righteous.

Like the article says nobody is right or wrong. I just simply put the case out there that one personality is a good fit for different stages of the company.

Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities

#29

Post by derefr »

WildUtah wrote: post #18

Robert X Cringely said that programmers are divided into nerds and geeks. The nerds do the wrong thing well and the geeks do the right thing badly. The reason computers are a revolutionary productive technology is that when you put them together on a team they don't do what you would expect and do the wrong things badly but instead do the right things well. I don't know how to use that story to write better Clojure,…

I don't know about putting them on a team. I've always thought of the dichotomy as being properly between "engine" code and "script" code: the engine defines your platform by implementing the mechanism, and the script defines your business use-case by implementing the policy.

See, e.g., game engines vs. Lua scripting, or the LAMP stack vs. PHP scripting, or the implementation of framework DSLs like Rails vs. their usage. Type A people write libraries and generic servers; Type B people write apps by consuming and wrapping and configuring and composing libraries and generic servers—writing the classic "glue code."

I think a lot of the misshapen cultural dynamics in most software projects are the result of Type A people thinking its their job to implement policy (in the engine), and Type B people thinking it's their job to implement mechanism (in the app.) It works best when these people aren't on a team, but instead have a clearly-defined idea of where their responsibilities end and passing the buck begins.

Re: Clojure is for Type B personalities

#30

Post by js8 »

I have to say, I was trying to learn Clojure (instead of Common Lisp) and actually fell in love with Haskell when a friend explained that I don't have to write the type signatures - almost at all. Indeed; previously, I was rigorously doing type signatures on all functions in Haskell, and found it very annoying.

The only downside of that was it made sometimes harder to figure out the error. When you get run time type error, you can do the traces on the values and see where it happens more easily. In case of static typing error, you cannot even start the program. But perhaps this just requires some better practice.

And I also experienced the "when it compiles, almost correct" proverb from Haskell community.

The other thing that converted me to Haskell from Lisp was that I learned (theoretically, so far) about how to write interpreters using free monads. And you get type checking with it.

Post reply on HN