Only solve one new problem at a time • Hacker News Board

Re: Only solve one new problem at a time

#41

Post by Isamu » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 4:08 PM UTC

lightbendover wrote: post #17

This post actually doesn't resonate with me at all (and I've always respected Ben). I feel like I'm constantly solving a multitude of problems and actively look for opportunities where I can introduce new tech that hits on multiple disparate streams at once (I have neither the bandwidth as an org or the personal time to operate in a different manner), typically coupled with other new tech; even that is orthogonal to…

So more like one fix at a time? I agree with that.

And that one fix is a big win if it addresses multiple problems. We should look for commonalities among problems.

Re: Only solve one new problem at a time

#42

Post by valbaca » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

Archelaos wrote: post #38

Although I agree with the general view of the article, the rule "If It Can't Be Done Incrementally, Don't Do It" does not always apply. I once had to refactor a large application from non-currency-aware to currency-aware. This means every single database field and every single operation involving prices had to be touched. Of course, I did not randomly jump around the code and instead tried to do it systematically. Bu…

> instead tried to do it systematically

Exception proving the rule. Yes, sometimes for something as deep as adding currency you do just need to fully refactor BUT I think you're still doing it in the spirit of "One Problem At a Time" You were adding currency, not adding currency AND updating the date library AND touching up the unit testing mocking AND adjusting that CSS for the checkout button (or whatever equivalent).

Re: Only solve one new problem at a time

#43

Post by ml_giant » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #36

100011_100001 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ed, I'm glad you are still here :) - A fan

Thank you 100011_100001! I got so excited by your response, I figured what the heck and turned my original response into a code-generated, html-driven, svg-drawn comic strip and put in on the front page of my portfolio here: edweissman.com. (Hit the 2 big arrows to surf the other 18 comics. For me, this is way more fun than anything else I ever did on that page.) Enjoy and thanks again!

How did you make those comics? Is there something that just generates the html for you?

Re: Only solve one new problem at a time

#44

Post by cainxinth » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 5:52 PM UTC

There is a corollary to this advice: only try one solution at a time.

If you throw everything you have at a problem all at once you might solve it without figuring out which of the things you tried worked.

Re: Only solve one new problem at a time

#45

Post by edw519 » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 5:52 PM UTC

ml_giant wrote: post #43

edw519 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you 100011_100001! I got so excited by your response, I figured what the heck and turned my original response into a code-generated, html-driven, svg-drawn comic strip and put in on the front page of my portfolio here: edweissman.com. (Hit the 2 big arrows to surf the other 18 comics. For me, this is way more fun than anything else I ever did on that page.) Enjoy and thanks again!

How did you make those comics? Is there something that just generates the html for you?

Is there something that just generates the html for you?

Exactly. I rolled my own CMS just for this. No images, just html and superfast svg built from database parameters. I'll be launching a full webcomic only site by the end of the year. I hope to include source at some point. I'll keep you posted.

Re: Only solve one new problem at a time

#46

Post by runjake » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 5:55 PM UTC

100011_100001 wrote: post #28

edw519 wrote: post #14

As a general rule, successful programmers have been doing this forever: - It works. You added 2 things. It doesn't work. Which thing broke it? - It doesn't work. You changed 2 things. It works. Which thing fixed it? - It works. Two people changed it. It doesn't work. Who broke it? - One donut left. 2 programmers went into break room. No donuts left. Who ate it? Now change "2" to "1" in all of the above examples. See…

Ed, I'm glad you are still here :) - A fan

+1 Ed. Glad whenever I see you pop up on HN/Twitter.

Re: Only solve one new problem at a time

#47

Post by systems » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 6:04 PM UTC

edw519 wrote: post #14

As a general rule, successful programmers have been doing this forever: - It works. You added 2 things. It doesn't work. Which thing broke it? - It doesn't work. You changed 2 things. It works. Which thing fixed it? - It works. Two people changed it. It doesn't work. Who broke it? - One donut left. 2 programmers went into break room. No donuts left. Who ate it? Now change "2" to "1" in all of the above examples. See…

This is why we use Git, 2 commits and 1 push , best of both worlds

Re: Only solve one new problem at a time

#48

Post by das_keyboard » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

There is nothing more exstatic than the feeling of having solved 4 problems at once with one changeset - there is also nothing more devastating than having to figure out which of the 4 changes caused problem number 5.

Re: Only solve one new problem at a time

#49

Post by lightbendover » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

dcow wrote: post #30

lightbendover wrote: post #17

This post actually doesn't resonate with me at all (and I've always respected Ben). I feel like I'm constantly solving a multitude of problems and actively look for opportunities where I can introduce new tech that hits on multiple disparate streams at once (I have neither the bandwidth as an org or the personal time to operate in a different manner), typically coupled with other new tech; even that is orthogonal to…

I think the post is discussing building software/product not managing teams of people. Also a manager is not synonymous with a high bandwidth engineer.

How is a manager not synonymous with a high bandwidth engineer? If I told an engineer to execute on an immensely huge and complex problem (e.g. go build a new secondary market with tendrils into everything else the company is doing) by themselves and they did, how is that different than telling a senior manager to do the same? Really depends on the lens you're looking through.

Re: Only solve one new problem at a time

#50

Post by lightbendover » Thu, Nov 10, 2022, 6:24 PM UTC

shove wrote: post #27

lightbendover wrote: post #17

This post actually doesn't resonate with me at all (and I've always respected Ben). I feel like I'm constantly solving a multitude of problems and actively look for opportunities where I can introduce new tech that hits on multiple disparate streams at once (I have neither the bandwidth as an org or the personal time to operate in a different manner), typically coupled with other new tech; even that is orthogonal to…

I think the advice is fine if applied to one context at a time. You can paint one room in your house and replace the carpet in another "simultaneously" without too much risk, but doing both at once in the same room is asking for disaster.

It really depends on the congruency between orthogonal tasks. Painting walls and laying carpet are diametrically opposed and are mutually exclusive. There are other mixed contexts that don't attribute this trait, e.g. I can make updates to multiple disparate ad products in tandem which independently have impact on a central ad server while also introducing new caches to the ad server without exceeding the risk threshold of making such changes at once. This kind of thing happens every day.