221–230 of 402 posts
Here’s the actual rule, do what works and ships. Don’t posture. Don’t lament. Don’t idealize. Just solve the fucking problem with the tool and method that fits and move on.
And do not try to use this comment threat to understand FP. Too many cooks, and most of the are condescending douchebags. Go look at Wikipedia or talk with an AI about it. Don’t ask this place, it’s all just lectures and nitpicks.
When I first heard the maxim that an intelligent person should be able to hold two opposing thoughts at the same time, I was naive to think it meant weighing them for pros and cons. Over time I realized that it means balancing contradictory actions, and the main purpose of experience is knowing when to apply each. Concretely related to the topic, I've often found myself inlining short pieces of one-time code that mad…
I had exactly this discussion today in an architectural discussion about an infrastructure extension today. As our newest team member noted, we planned to follow the reference architecture of a system in some places, and chose not to follow the reference architecture in other places. And this led to a really good discussion pulling the reference architecture of this system apart and understanding what it optimizes fo…
> That was a cold-sweat moment for me: after all of my harping about latency and responsiveness, I almost shipped a title with a completely unnecessary frame of latency. In this era of 3-5 frame latency being the norm (at least on e.g. the Nintendo Switch), I really appreciate a game developer having anxiety over a single frame.
To be fair, back in 2014 that was one frame at 60Hz or slower for some titles. At 80-120Hz, 3-5 frames is comparatively similar time.
Wikipedia indicates the Switch maxes out at 1080p60, and the newest Zelda only at 900p30 even when docked
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He literally said he’s bullish on pure fp. Which means he is off writing pure fp. His own article about it never explicitly or implicitly implies a “pragmatic approach”. I never said he said his email was completely outdated. He for sure implies it’s outdated and updates us on his views of inlining which I also mentioned.
> I never said he said his email was completely outdated. From your prior message: > Carmack called his email completely outdated
He still does inlining.
Oh good, a FP post. I love watching people argue over nothing. Here’s the actual rule, do what works and ships. Don’t posture. Don’t lament. Don’t idealize. Just solve the fucking problem with the tool and method that fits and move on. And do not try to use this comment threat to understand FP. Too many cooks, and most of the are condescending douchebags. Go look at Wikipedia or talk with an AI about it. Don’t ask th…
When I first heard the maxim that an intelligent person should be able to hold two opposing thoughts at the same time, I was naive to think it meant weighing them for pros and cons. Over time I realized that it means balancing contradictory actions, and the main purpose of experience is knowing when to apply each. Concretely related to the topic, I've often found myself inlining short pieces of one-time code that mad…
I often Bang on about “software is a new form of literacy”. And this I feel is a classic example - software is a form of literacy that not only can be executed by a CPU but also at the same time is a way to transmit concepts from one humans head to another (just like writing) And so asking “will AI generated code help” is like asking “will AI generated blog spam help”? No - companies with GitHub copilot are basically…
His overall solution highlighted in the intro is that he's moved on from inlining and now does pure functional programming. Inlining is only relevant for him during IO or state changes which he does as minimally as possible and segregates this from his core logic. Pure functional programming is the bigger insight here that most programmers will just never understand why there's a benefit there. In fact most programme…
I think more people grasp functional programming all the time, or at least the most salient detail: referential transparency. It’s easy to show the benefits in the small, without getting heavy on academics: pure functions are easier to test, understand, and change with confidence. All three of these reinforce each other, but they’re each independently beneficial as well. There are tons of benefits to get from learnin…
In pure fp. You can break your function down into the smallest computational unit possible. This is what prevents technical debt of the architectural nature as you can rewrite your code as simply recomposing your modular logic.
But then after things have solidified somewhat, it's good practice to go back through your code and determine whether those “verbs” ended up being used more than once. Quite often, something that I thought would be repeated enough to justify being its own function, is actually only invoked in one specific place—so I go back and inline these functions as needed.
The less my code looks like a byzantine tangle of function invocations, and the more my code reads like a straightforward list of statements to execute in order, the better it makes me feel, because I know that I'm not unnecessarily hiding complexity, and I can get a better, more concrete feel for what my program's execution looks like.
Oh good, a FP post. I love watching people argue over nothing. Here’s the actual rule, do what works and ships. Don’t posture. Don’t lament. Don’t idealize. Just solve the fucking problem with the tool and method that fits and move on. And do not try to use this comment threat to understand FP. Too many cooks, and most of the are condescending douchebags. Go look at Wikipedia or talk with an AI about it. Don’t ask th…