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

"My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

ask.slashdot.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 199 posts

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#121

Post by mjs »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #61

> Japan is somewhat famous for churning out students who know a lot about English, but can't order a drink at Mac Donald's. An old friend of mine had a master's degree in French literature. She used to live in Ottawa, Ontario and was fond of a pizza place just across the river in Hull, Quebec. One day she called to order a pizza, and when it came time to ask for it to be delivered she realized she didn't know how. Sh…

I guess this is also illustrates the difference between studying French at university, and studying it at Alliance française--or studying computer science at university, versus programming at a trade/vocational school.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#122

Post by aaronblohowiak »

chriserin wrote: post #80
SMrF wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can check off everything on this list and still write inscrutable code. The worst code I've seen is code that was written so that only one person understands what's happening -- the author. Typically the code has too many branches and ridiculous call stacks. The writing analog is a run-on sentence. This usually happens when the programmer at fault is really smart but still hasn't learned that at some poin…

Titling people editors, the ones that are senior in an organization and might be titled as architects or senior engineers, now, would be incredible. With their current titles they are involved much more at the beginning of the process than at the end, when 'editor' implies the opposite. It would be nice to have the senior folk guide the developer as opposed to handing off a blueprint and getting out of the way. (Not…

This is the linux model. First, discussion then front-line coders create a patch, then lieutenants review the patch and submit to their superiors who review the patch and ultimately, all patches go through Linus before being committed to kernel. This way, the style and potential issues are enforced by the most senior people that are the stewards for the code base.

Linus has deputized a few people to commit without his review, I believe.. but this is after years of working with them.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#123

Post by yxhuvud »

SMrF wrote: post #68
edw519 wrote: post #16

Most code sucks because we have the fluency equivalent of 3 year olds trying to write a novel. Let's get a little more specific... Most code sucks because the programmer: - didn't name his variables what the really were - didn't understand variable state - didn't understand variable scope - didn't understand the basic concepts of iteration - didn't understand any of the algorithms he needed - wrote the same lines of…

I think you can check off everything on this list and still write inscrutable code. The worst code I've seen is code that was written so that only one person understands what's happening -- the author. Typically the code has too many branches and ridiculous call stacks. The writing analog is a run-on sentence. This usually happens when the programmer at fault is really smart but still hasn't learned that at some poin…

No, it is a run on paragraph. The equivalent of a run on sentence is a method that is way too long.

Also, we practice code review at our work. That is definitely a way of fulfilling the role of being editors.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#124

Post by yxhuvud »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #73
dspeyer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The worst code I've seen is from programmers who had no mental model of what they were doing, just changed things at random until tests passed. The worst writing I've seen: * is ungrammatical to the point of incoherency * loses its train of thought mid-sentence and talks about something unrelated * is full of irrelevant details * simply ignores everything above the sentence level, producing mere text, no argument, st…

Not really the same failure modes. Really? Because except for the first one (which we have compilers to thank for), your three remaining points apply equally well to a lot of code I've seen.

The first point applies as well, to when his counterexample has happened.

Who has not seen a piece of code that is so bad they don't even understand how it can compile, coming out of a newbie?

Doing strange undefined things in C comes to mind as a usual case where this happens.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#126

Post by saraid216 »

I agree with him. As kylematthews points out, it's not about the substance of the thing--capturing an audience, I/O calls, or anything like that. It's about communication.

Communication is about translating something conceptual inside your own head to become understandable by something (usually a person) outside of it. The way we do this is by language. A programming language is merely the way we communicate with a computer. To do it right, you need to understand the parts of the computer that you want to change.

It's not a mistake that we used to call impressive coding "wizardry" or "deep magic". It was about casting spells... except that if you actually step to the side and look at what "spell" means, it's simply a story.

A good program tells a good story. You might not appreciate the characters or the plot, but the computer sure does.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#127

Post by gruseom »

murkt wrote: post #76
SMrF wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can check off everything on this list and still write inscrutable code. The worst code I've seen is code that was written so that only one person understands what's happening -- the author. Typically the code has too many branches and ridiculous call stacks. The writing analog is a run-on sentence. This usually happens when the programmer at fault is really smart but still hasn't learned that at some poin…

What you think code reviewing is for?

No, traditional code reviewing is just spot checking. That is analogous to having an editor only look at a few passages of a novel. An editor needs to work with the whole text. This is the trouble with formal code reviews. Pair programming attempts to solve this by making all code get reviewed as it gets written. Like it or hate it, that at least tries to solve the core problem.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#128

Post by mattgreenrocks »

hook wrote: post #107
chriserin wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Titling people editors, the ones that are senior in an organization and might be titled as architects or senior engineers, now, would be incredible. With their current titles they are involved much more at the beginning of the process than at the end, when 'editor' implies the opposite. It would be nice to have the senior folk guide the developer as opposed to handing off a blueprint and getting out of the way. (Not…

Agreed. And here is an example where, without comment scores, it is impossible to know how many other people feel the same way.

I'm not sure why that is relevant here. We're not voting on anything, just discussing it.

Besides, you could always send a message to the author and ask if you're interested.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#129

Post by wccrawford »

mckoss wrote: post #78
wccrawford wrote: post #7

Programming isn't about writing. It's about logic. It's a series of instructions for a computer to follow. The old 'write down how to tie shoes' or 'write down how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich' projects show just how hard it can be to pin down exactly what needs to be done to do seemingly simple tasks. The writing is merely how to you transmit the logic.

I think the point that OP is trying to make is about skill acquisition. He argues you can't learn to program well merely by learning programming concepts. Rather, you must immerse yourself in reading and writing real programs.

I thought that was going to be the point, too, but I read it and I couldn't find anywhere that he stated anything like that.

And I agree with that. The best way to get better at something is to do it. Other things can help you along and accelerate your improvement, but they don't work on their own. You have to do it.

Re: "My current theory is that programming is quite literally writing."

#130

Post by mattmiller »

larrik wrote: post #3

I think he's right. In college, my CS 2 class was taught by a professor very different than the rest of the teachers there. He wanted all of your programming assignments on paper[1]. Then, you'd get it back with every possible bug marked in your program, and he very rarely missed any[2]. That was the first time in college I thought "I really need to learn how to do that!" I went to a state school, so maybe all you gu…

I transferred to an under funded state school from a well funded community college. The CC has computer labs that CS classes were taught in. The state school taught CS with chalk boards. I learned much more with chalk boards.
Post reply on HN