Live data from Hacker News

The Best Programming Advice I Ever Got (2012)

russolsen.com

11–20 of 247 posts

Re: The Best Programming Advice I Ever Got (2012)

#11

All it reminds me of Steve Jobs saying A players only want to work with A players. B players hire C players, C hire D and before you know it, you have the politics described in this article.

It's convenient to try to squeeze his story into Steve Job's mold, but in my experience, it's the A players who tend to be the most guilty when it comes to these kinds of politics.

In my company, I've worked in two departments - one full of highly intelligent folks, and the other full of mediocre ones. In the former, these kinds of politics prevailed. I recall a particular instance where one person was working on a library, and he would actively invade other teams to shut down projects that remotely resembled his - even if his library did not supply all the features the others were building, and even though he had not yet released his library.

In the latter team, people knew they were mediocre, and were much more open to learn because of it. Pointing out problems with their code never triggered their ego.

Re: The Best Programming Advice I Ever Got (2012)

#12

I'm just not piecing it together. The author was told: >In the future, stay the Hell out of other people's code. But then says: >Actually it was terrible advice, advice that I've gone out of my way to ignore in the years since. But those words were valuable nevertheless, and I've gone back to them time and again. So was that advice bad and why? Or did it end up being useful, and why?

Awful article for this reason.

Learned nothing.

Re: The Best Programming Advice I Ever Got (2012)

#13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, the probability of this happening increases proportionally with the size of the company.

Wouldn't that mean that the probability is always 100% because the company is always 100% of its current proportion?

No, "proportional" just means the two things correspond in size, not that the sizes are equal. In other words there is a positive correlation between the values.

Re: The Best Programming Advice I Ever Got (2012)

#14
post #7

I'm just not piecing it together. The author was told: >In the future, stay the Hell out of other people's code. But then says: >Actually it was terrible advice, advice that I've gone out of my way to ignore in the years since. But those words were valuable nevertheless, and I've gone back to them time and again. So was that advice bad and why? Or did it end up being useful, and why?

This article literally made no sense

That's deliberate. It's not meant to be read literally. The author is using the rhetorical device of irony.

Re: The Best Programming Advice I Ever Got (2012)

#15
Since the article sucked, I'll give the 2 best engineering advice I've received from 2 different senior engineers:

>Remember when you'd go to eat at a restaurant, and the kids menu has that game where 'What's the difference between these two pictures?' That is Reverse Engineering. You have a part that works, a part that doesn't work. What is different?

>"You just kind of figure it out". Not sure how to start/solve a problem. Figure it out. This means researching, doing math, proving, and testing. And as I've done this more and more, math is really really useful to prove things.

Re: The Best Programming Advice I Ever Got (2012)

#16
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that mean that the probability is always 100% because the company is always 100% of its current proportion?

No, "proportional" just means the two things correspond in size, not that the sizes are equal. In other words there is a positive correlation between the values.

According to the Wikipedia page for proportionality[1], the values "can also be viewed as a two-variable linear equation with a y-intercept of 0". Direct (as opposed to inverse) proportionality is a type of positive correlation but they are not the same thing. Because we are dealing with probability percentage as a proportion of the company's size either the size is greater than zero and the probability is 100% or both values are zero.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)

Re: The Best Programming Advice I Ever Got (2012)

#18
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, "proportional" just means the two things correspond in size, not that the sizes are equal. In other words there is a positive correlation between the values.

According to the Wikipedia page for proportionality[1], the values "can also be viewed as a two-variable linear equation with a y-intercept of 0". Direct (as opposed to inverse) proportionality is a type of positive correlation but they are not the same thing. Because we are dealing with probability percentage as a proportion of the company's size either the size is greater than zero and the probability is 100% or bo…

These are the absolutely useless arguments I come to Hacker News for.

Re: The Best Programming Advice I Ever Got (2012)

#19
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article literally made no sense

That's deliberate. It's not meant to be read literally. The author is using the rhetorical device of irony.

More than irony, it's a paradox: the advice was so bad that it was useful, because he had no doubt it was bad and it was received in dramatic circumstances so he will always remember to do exactly the opposite.

Re: The Best Programming Advice I Ever Got (2012)

#20
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's deliberate. It's not meant to be read literally. The author is using the rhetorical device of irony.

More than irony, it's a paradox: the advice was so bad that it was useful, because he had no doubt it was bad and it was received in dramatic circumstances so he will always remember to do exactly the opposite.

I stand corrected. I read and understand such devices, but it's been so long since I had to formally identify them that I just go for the basics. As an aside, as time goes on, I find myself valuing more and more the ability to read and write beyond the purely literal. The literal can be so inelegant and inefficient, but sometimes it feels like anything beyond the literal can be perceived almost as a foreign language, and if the person with whom one is communicating never learned that language, it's all Greek. I suppose its like an add-on to one's language that's learned in Literature classes, or rhetoric classes, or Classics.
Post reply on HN