Live data from Hacker News

A letter from _why

aberant.tumblr.com

101–104 of 104 posts

Re: A letter from _why

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are really missing the point. One of the best ways to learn is to make a lot of mistakes, in everything.

Yeah, it's important to correct those mistakes, though. And ensure that the mistakes don't go unnoticed.

It is funny that you get downvoted in this thread as soon as you show some slight disagreement with "Why". At least, felipemnoa cared to explain: "the best way to learn is to make a lot of mistakes, in everything". I don't care that much about karma (would "Why" care? I doubt) so I will say here why I don't agree.

Mistakes are good, to some extent, but not in everything. Would you tell someone that unsafe sex is ok, and that one should learn its danger by doing the mistake, catching a STD, and then not doing it again? Would you tell someone that building a bridge without double checking pressure contraints and simic conditions is ok, that one will learn by one's mistakes when the bridge will fall apart? Hmm, so there are some limits to this "learn by your mistakes" thing, right?

In coding, the same. It is ok "to write dangerous or “crappy” code" (Why quote) in personal projects, not in those where life are at stake, eg. airport traffic control or medical software. It is ethically not ok to write dangerous code in these case, and I would say it is the same when your code will have to be read, used, debugged by others. I admire people taking risks, too, like I admire someone eating 50 eggs in 1 hour, but I would not always advise my friends and relatives or coworkers to take those risks. Sometime, most of the time, the reward is not good enough.

I appreciate "Why" writting skills, he is or was an impressive guy, but taking to the letter every of his tweets should not be mandatory on HN, I believe.

Thanks for explaining why and where I'm wrong, if it is the case.

Re: A letter from _why

#102
post #93
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's like the Bobby Fisher of programming W H A T !? How is _why in any way the Bobby Fisher of programming? Bobby Fischer was a famous, amazing chess player. _why is a person that writes code and some people (some Ruby developers, rather) look up to. They're not comparable in any way.

Bobby Fischer was famous, among chess players. _why was famous, among rubyists. The only difference is they didn't make a movie about _why.

yet :)

Re: A letter from _why

#103
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's important to correct those mistakes, though. And ensure that the mistakes don't go unnoticed.

It is funny that you get downvoted in this thread as soon as you show some slight disagreement with "Why". At least, felipemnoa cared to explain: "the best way to learn is to make a lot of mistakes, in everything". I don't care that much about karma (would "Why" care? I doubt) so I will say here why I don't agree. Mistakes are good, to some extent, but not in everything. Would you tell someone that unsafe sex is ok,…

>>Would you tell someone that unsafe sex is ok, and that one should learn its danger by doing the mistake, catching a STD, and then not doing it again?

Your example is a little bit over the top. I might have generalized too much but I think that in the context of the discussion you get the point I was trying to convey. There are always exceptions to every rule, of course. I believe my comment still stands, most of the time.

Re: A letter from _why

#104

As a beginner at programming, I find _Why to be a breath of fresh air. I realize that experienced coders may berate him for advocating writing sloppy code, but for someone (like me) who is just getting into this deep rabbit hole, I find his thoughts to be encouraging. I fully agree with some of the comments here that mention writing bad code is the only path to writing clean and safe code. I wish more experienced hac…

There's a balance though. In your free time, you should be the mad scientist, but on the job, correctness and maintainability is crucial in your final product. You can even play the mad scientist at work, but production-quality code has to be clean and professional, and that should be your code's final form.

Yes, this is so true. Too often someone wants to learn a new technique and throws it in production code without fully understanding it. Others get stuck maintaining it, also without fully understanding the technique, and because a full refactor is usually too expensive to justify.

It's great for learning on your own time, but hurts so many others when doing it professionally.

Post reply on HN