81–90 of 601 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel your accounts bio perfectly matches the spirit of your posts content here haha!
The quotes in my bio are by people who thought things through, while the CMS exploded in scope while I made it, so I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The quotes in my bio are by people who thought things through, while the CMS exploded in scope while I made it, so I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?
The verbosity and wall of text
I just thought about that when I saw a youtube comment saying "stolen" in response to a funny joke. I wondered, do they mean they intend to "steal it" because it's a good joke, or did they mean the person who posted the joke stole it from somewhere? Nobody will ever know, at least I for one won't sign in just to ask.
I notice that since mobile devices, a lot of "communication" on the web these days is kinda like the "small talk" from Kevin from The Office US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K-L9uhsBLM
If I hadn't asked what you meant, I and anyone else who read your comment would have had their own interpretation of it. I see a lot of comments like that on HN, where you would have to ask "what do you mean?" because it's totally unclear. A variation is stating something that is factually true but doesn't really refute anything, but the commenter clearly seems to mean something by stating that triviality, but don't say what it is. It's like dog whistles, but not for others to hear, but only the posters themselves know what they mean. Count me out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The verbosity and wall of text
Maybe, but at least it's more or less clear what I mean right away :P A million words conveying one unit of meaning are still more efficient than ten words conveying no meaning. I just thought about that when I saw a youtube comment saying "stolen" in response to a funny joke. I wondered, do they mean they intend to "steal it" because it's a good joke, or did they mean the person who posted the joke stole it from som…
No need for 'atleast'. I'm not criticizing the length, its fun-ny because its another form of life and way of expression that others use, brings me joy when i see patterns in life, expressed in many forms, one being someone who is verbose writing a hilarious god function then inadvertently backs up that 'digital persona' posting with a god function-esque bio lol!
As many experienced commenters below have already noted, nearly any piece of substantial, revenue-generating, long-lived code will ascend to a place full of dragons and mysticism. The more interesting debates revolve around: 1) How did it get that way, and what can we learn from that? 2) Is it inevitable that all software will end up like that? 3) How can an organization ever successfully sunset or move to a more mai…
This framework was given to an offshore team, and they were told to use it to farm out hundreds of requests. The framework was inflexible enough that they each started adding snippets here and there to make it work for those projects, with no code review.
When I joined there were well over a hundred different projects, all using this framework at the core, most having little bespoke tweaks to make the code work. Every failure was essentially a new failure in a new way.
It was a useful experience - it's one of those experiences that teaches me via a negative example. This was the worst example of how "roll your own" resulted in incredible technical debt I've seen.
We have absolutely no idea how to write code. I always wonder if it's like this for other branches of engineering too? I wonder if engineers who designed my elevator or airplane had "ok it's very surprising that it's working, let's not touch this" moments. Or chemical engineers synthesize medicines in way nobody but a rockstar guru understands but everyone changes all the time. I wonder if my cellphone is made by mac…
> I wonder if engineers who designed my elevator or airplane had "ok it's very surprising that it's working, let's not touch this" moments. I honestly sometimes do wonder. Judging by the elevators in my building some things even barely work at times. They go down often and require parts replacements that take weeks to arrive. They're barely 3 years old.
Isn’t that one of the two main features of the product?
Any large company. I’m being serious. As a development coach I see a lot of code and I must say the DEFAULT is “how does any of this even work?”
The crazy part is going into the commit logs and seeing that a lot of the people who wrote this have been very successful. They've become vice presidents, retired rich, and written influential papers.
We have absolutely no idea how to write code. I always wonder if it's like this for other branches of engineering too? I wonder if engineers who designed my elevator or airplane had "ok it's very surprising that it's working, let's not touch this" moments. Or chemical engineers synthesize medicines in way nobody but a rockstar guru understands but everyone changes all the time. I wonder if my cellphone is made by mac…
The difference is, an elevator is a precisely defined problem and never needs to have its functionality improved and changed. In fact, you could build the exact elevator almost identically. Software is never like that — it’s dynamic and constantly changing throughout the life cycle of the software.
Ha! As a mechanical engineer, no, nothing in reality is ever precisely defined. Consider that every single part in the elevator has a tolerance: none of the parts are exactly the same in every elevator. Did you account for thermal expansion? What about wear? Fatigue?
> Software is never like that — it’s dynamic and constantly changing throughout the life cycle of the software.
But elevators need to be shipped right the first time and can't make mistakes; with software, it almost never works perfectly no matter how much time passes.