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

Speed matters: Why working quickly is more important than it seems

jsomers.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 144 posts

Re: Speed matters: Why working quickly is more important than it seems

#121

Post by tome »

lectrick wrote: post #120
quietplatypus wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I love Haskell---the check, though approximate, is built in to the language as the type checker. Pair it up with the speed Haskell coder's best friend, "undefined", and you can be just 40 characters into writing part of a method and check it right there on the spot, getting into a good flow.

I see that appeal of Haskell, and I think the strict focus on typing does catch many possible bugs... but I don't think it catches all the types of bugs that an actual unit test would, so I'm almost afraid that it's leaned on a bit too much.

> but I don't think it catches all the types of bugs that an actual unit test would

You are correct. Likewise types can catch some bugs that unit tests cannot.

Re: Speed matters: Why working quickly is more important than it seems

#122

Post by gress »

travjones wrote: post #106
gress wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a blog post - an opinion piece - not a scientific paper. Do you go around criticizing all opinions that refer to people's thought processes as 'flawed because it doesn't provide means for prediction and control of behavior'?

I understand that this is just a blog post. This post provided me an opportunity to spread the word about behavior analysis. If the author is advocating for behavior change (i.e., "doing things faster"), then we should speak in terms that have grounding in a science of behavior. That doesn't mean you have to conduct an experiment, but base your argument in science. If I were to make claims about how a particular piec…

Are you saying that talking about what goes on in the mind is unscientific and should not be done?

Re: Speed matters: Why working quickly is more important than it seems

#123

Post by travjones »

gress wrote: post #122
travjones wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that this is just a blog post. This post provided me an opportunity to spread the word about behavior analysis. If the author is advocating for behavior change (i.e., "doing things faster"), then we should speak in terms that have grounding in a science of behavior. That doesn't mean you have to conduct an experiment, but base your argument in science. If I were to make claims about how a particular piec…

Are you saying that talking about what goes on in the mind is unscientific and should not be done?

"What goes on in the mind" is behavior. It can be studied scientifically but one can run into the "private event" problem. That is, what goes on in the mind is a private event only observable to the subject. In many psychological experiments, what goes on in the mind is inferred from observable behavior. This is problematic.

In behavior analysis all behavior is considered the subject matter, including private events. So the answer to your question is: No, I'm not saying that.

Re: Speed matters: Why working quickly is more important than it seems

#124

Post by gress »

travjones wrote: post #123
gress wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that talking about what goes on in the mind is unscientific and should not be done?

"What goes on in the mind" is behavior. It can be studied scientifically but one can run into the "private event" problem. That is, what goes on in the mind is a private event only observable to the subject. In many psychological experiments, what goes on in the mind is inferred from observable behavior. This is problematic. In behavior analysis all behavior is considered the subject matter, including private events.…

It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind.

I wish you luck in persuading people to accept this philosophy. You may have an uphill struggle convincing people that it is comprehensive enough to replace all the other ways humans have thought about their experiences to date.

Re: Speed matters: Why working quickly is more important than it seems

#125

Post by travjones »

gress wrote: post #124
travjones wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What goes on in the mind" is behavior. It can be studied scientifically but one can run into the "private event" problem. That is, what goes on in the mind is a private event only observable to the subject. In many psychological experiments, what goes on in the mind is inferred from observable behavior. This is problematic. In behavior analysis all behavior is considered the subject matter, including private events.…

It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind. I wish you luck in persuading people to accept this philosophy. You may have an uphill struggle convincing people that it is comprehensive enough to replace all the other ways humans have thought about their experiences to date.

>"It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind."

That's not what I think. See the difficulty in inferring someone else's thoughts? ;)

If we are just theorizing or talking about what the mind is and so on, then this belongs in the realm of philosophy.

Behavior analysis is alive and well on the psychological scene. APA's lifetime achievement award this year went to an applied behavior analyst. If behaving is doing and behavior is the subject matter of behavior analysis, that's pretty comprehensive.

Re: Speed matters: Why working quickly is more important than it seems

#126

Post by gress »

travjones wrote: post #125
gress wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind. I wish you luck in persuading people to accept this philosophy. You may have an uphill struggle convincing people that it is comprehensive enough to replace all the other ways humans have thought about their experiences to date.

>"It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind." That's not what I think. See the difficulty in inferring someone else's thoughts? ;) If we are just theorizing or talking about what the mind is and so on, then this belongs in the realm of philosophy. Behavior analysis is alive and well on the psychological scene. APA's lifetime achievement award this year went to an app…

It may not be what you think, but you continue to argue (condescendingly) that behavior analysis is the only valid approach to any topic concerning human behavior. Now you do so by an appeal to authority.

Have you considered the possibility that some philosophy might actually be useful in this domain?

[incidentally: I have nothing against behavioral analysis in itself - just the claim that thinking about what goes on in the mind should be excluded in its favor]

Re: Speed matters: Why working quickly is more important than it seems

#127

Post by [deleted] »

travjones wrote: post #125
gress wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind. I wish you luck in persuading people to accept this philosophy. You may have an uphill struggle convincing people that it is comprehensive enough to replace all the other ways humans have thought about their experiences to date.

>"It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind." That's not what I think. See the difficulty in inferring someone else's thoughts? ;) If we are just theorizing or talking about what the mind is and so on, then this belongs in the realm of philosophy. Behavior analysis is alive and well on the psychological scene. APA's lifetime achievement award this year went to an app…

[deleted]

Re: Speed matters: Why working quickly is more important than it seems

#128

Post by collyw »

Retric wrote: post #46
klibertp wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Measure your writing speed. Aim for 70-80 WPM. If you get that speed then it's a) enough and b) it doesn't matter at all if you "touch type" properly or have invented your own typing system.

The advantage of touch typing is on a good keyboard/desk/etc you can do it 10 hours a day for 30 years without wrecking your hands. That said, most programmers don't actually type that much so it's not nearly as important.

I use an IDE and tab completion most of the day.

Re: Speed matters: Why working quickly is more important than it seems

#129

Post by travjones »

gress wrote: post #126
travjones wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"It seems you think that people should only use behavior analysis when talking about the mind." That's not what I think. See the difficulty in inferring someone else's thoughts? ;) If we are just theorizing or talking about what the mind is and so on, then this belongs in the realm of philosophy. Behavior analysis is alive and well on the psychological scene. APA's lifetime achievement award this year went to an app…

It may not be what you think, but you continue to argue (condescendingly) that behavior analysis is the only valid approach to any topic concerning human behavior. Now you do so by an appeal to authority. Have you considered the possibility that some philosophy might actually be useful in this domain? [incidentally: I have nothing against behavioral analysis in itself - just the claim that thinking about what goes on…

My bad for coming off as condescending. That wasn't my intention. Philosophy is useful when talking about or discussing things. The problem with philosophy though is it doesn't allow one to predict and control behavior. Thus, if practical behavior change is your goal then behavior analysis is appropriate.

Re: Speed matters: Why working quickly is more important than it seems

#130

Post by prodigal_erik »

tome wrote: post #121
lectrick wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that appeal of Haskell, and I think the strict focus on typing does catch many possible bugs... but I don't think it catches all the types of bugs that an actual unit test would, so I'm almost afraid that it's leaned on a bit too much.

> but I don't think it catches all the types of bugs that an actual unit test would You are correct. Likewise types can catch some bugs that unit tests cannot.

There is always a unit test which could catch any type mismatch. The problem is that every type declaration implies a set of unit tests (probably an unbounded set!) and in practice it's not likely you'll actually write enough of them.
Post reply on HN