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

RTFC is the New RTFM

jakeradakovich.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#21

Post by lacksconfidence »

kaffeinecoma wrote: post #2

I nonchalantly told him to look at the source code of the library we were using. He looked at me like I had asked him to help me dig up a grave. I can't imagine not examining the source code of the various frameworks I use on a daily basis. I think the next time I interview a candidate I will ask them what major open-source libraries they use. Then I will ask them what they think of the quality of the source code, ho…

I feel the same. I don't know where i would be as a programmer if I didn't open up the code to libraries and look around. Reading through this thread I seem to be the odd one out, but generally after about a week of working with a library i skip the documentation and go straight to the source. Even more so on libraries that fake their documentation by auto-generating it from doc comments. Why would i want to read documentation generated from the source when I could just read the source and comments, having twice as much info? Additionally many projects documentation only gets to the level of 'why do i want to use this' and not the nitty gritty details. Those details are in the code, and thats where I tend to look first on any project I'm familiar with.

I should add that i work with interpreted languages, so going from my code to library code is literally just a key combo that looks at the token under the cursor, finds it in ctags, and goes there. It takes a fraction of a second to be looking at the code.

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#23

Post by frenchy »

kaffeinecoma wrote: post #20
jimmaswell wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't look at my libraries' source unless I have a problem the documentation or google doesn't answer. that's really going to be your fizzbuzz? A lot of the time I don't need the docs anyway, I just find what I'm looking for in the iltellisense/other suggestions because the OO model makes this work great.

unless I have a problem the documentation or google doesn't answer Documentation/googling is definitely the right thing to do off the bat. But if they've never had a moment where they had to peek under the hood (or never thought to try, or didn't know how to) then yes, that's my FizzBuzz. I would perhaps not apply this to someone fresh out of school, but I would expect an experienced candidate to know how to "use the…

There is a difference between knowing how to do something and thinking it's a good idea.

Obviously if you need to look at your code for pragmatic purposes, that's fine; but if reading third-party code becomes your modus operandi, you just might be using crappy libraries.

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#25

Post by jradakov »

wereHamster wrote: post #22
nkuttler wrote: post #5

http://catb.org/jargon/html/R/RTFS.html

How far we've gone. First RTFB, then RTFM, now RTFS/C. What's next? RTF{Minds Of The People Who Wrote The Code}?

I agree (hence the post), but at least with open source we have access to the source code. I realize this doesn't replace documentation, but could you imagine using a closed source project with sh*y documentation?

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#26

Post by eterm »

kaffeinecoma wrote: post #2

I nonchalantly told him to look at the source code of the library we were using. He looked at me like I had asked him to help me dig up a grave. I can't imagine not examining the source code of the various frameworks I use on a daily basis. I think the next time I interview a candidate I will ask them what major open-source libraries they use. Then I will ask them what they think of the quality of the source code, ho…

Wow, I hope you never interview me.

FizzBuzz was a filter to filter out people who cannot code.

At all.

It was never designed as a competency measure, it was designed as a filter, to remove people who are mistaken into believing they can do something they cannot do at all.

What you have is a very precise measure, which would not even filter out the BSers who could probably happily talk for five minutes on the merits of a codebase they've never looked at (or perhaps even they have) but cannot despite this write a loop counting from 1 to 10.

Any blank stare after this question would not be me not understanding that libraries have code bases but would be me losing track wondering where my next interview would be.

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#28

Post by dllthomas »

spartango wrote: post #18

This worries me a little, because it cuts against the ideas of abstraction that are central to most software engineering. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against reading the code if and when it is available. I just worry that reliance on this MO goes against the idea that you can specify a programming interface for your system and people can develop against that without knowing the implementation. This is rather powerful…

I agree with you. There should be solid documentation.

However, there will always be corner cases, and occasionally it can be worthwhile/necessary to dig in and figure it out, and the ability to do so can be a big win. Though one must be appropriately wary about relying on undocumented behavior.

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#29

Post by dllthomas »

frenchy wrote: post #23
kaffeinecoma wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unless I have a problem the documentation or google doesn't answer Documentation/googling is definitely the right thing to do off the bat. But if they've never had a moment where they had to peek under the hood (or never thought to try, or didn't know how to) then yes, that's my FizzBuzz. I would perhaps not apply this to someone fresh out of school, but I would expect an experienced candidate to know how to "use the…

There is a difference between knowing how to do something and thinking it's a good idea. Obviously if you need to look at your code for pragmatic purposes, that's fine; but if reading third-party code becomes your modus operandi, you just might be using crappy libraries.

> you just might be using crappy libraries

Also, writing crappy code. If you are relying on undocumented behavior, it might well change under you. Looking past the abstraction is sometimes necessary, but it should be the exception.

Re: RTFC is the New RTFM

#30

Post by kaffeinecoma »

eterm wrote: post #26
kaffeinecoma wrote: post #2

I nonchalantly told him to look at the source code of the library we were using. He looked at me like I had asked him to help me dig up a grave. I can't imagine not examining the source code of the various frameworks I use on a daily basis. I think the next time I interview a candidate I will ask them what major open-source libraries they use. Then I will ask them what they think of the quality of the source code, ho…

Wow, I hope you never interview me. FizzBuzz was a filter to filter out people who cannot code. At all. It was never designed as a competency measure, it was designed as a filter, to remove people who are mistaken into believing they can do something they cannot do at all. What you have is a very precise measure, which would not even filter out the BSers who could probably happily talk for five minutes on the merits…

So you'd be unwilling to discuss a major library that you've used in your career (say Spring, or Rails) with a potential employer?

The "filter" I'm looking for is to weed out people who cannot crack open the source to something that is standing between them solving a problem. I'm not asking them to be an expert on the internals of everything they use. Apologies if my comment was unclear.

Post reply on HN