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

Steve Yegge: Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 186 posts

Re: Steve Yegge: Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus

#141

Post by blackhole »

flatline3 wrote: post #117
cletus wrote: post #28

As much as some commenters are (weirdly?) railing against this classification scheme I think the underlying idea that software conservatism is about risk aversion is essentially accurate. Perhaps another way of framing this is to ask the question: are you optimizing for the best case or the worst case? This ultimately is a form of risk management. And I'm not talking in the algorithmic sense, meaning complexity expre…

Yegge took a massive shit on technical discourse, and if not countered, the ramifications thereof could be felt for years . His influence is disproportional to his value, and I am extremely disappointed to see anyone here taking his emotional arguments seriously. Unless firmly censured, I expect to see Yegge's ridiculous viral meme of "liberal vs. conservative" spread and repeated by inexperienced developers indefini…

Of course, said careful analysis of specific problem domains is then thrown around with wild abandon in an attempt to influence totally unrelated issues, causing confusion and havoc for years to come.

Re: Steve Yegge: Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus

#142

Post by quatrevingts »

pheinberg wrote: post #94
cletus wrote: post #28

As much as some commenters are (weirdly?) railing against this classification scheme I think the underlying idea that software conservatism is about risk aversion is essentially accurate. Perhaps another way of framing this is to ask the question: are you optimizing for the best case or the worst case? This ultimately is a form of risk management. And I'm not talking in the algorithmic sense, meaning complexity expre…

I don't think the main problem with operator overloading is "abuse"; I think it's that there's absolutely no way to know what a given clause of code might mean , even if the overloading has been defined by excellent coders.

It's pretty obvious what it means: + means call the + function. Well what does that mean? Probably something additive. Just like if it were called "add". You don't really know in either case unless you read the function.

The risk is that programmers might start using symbols in a way that is not obvious, but what is obvious is highly contextual. I'd prefer it not be the language designer who decides which operators are obvious enough to be allowed in my context.

Re: Steve Yegge: Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus

#143

Post by vpatryshev »

michaelochurch wrote: post #27

I think I'm a software libertarian. If you like dynamic typing and can write good, legible code in a language like Python or Lisp, do it. If you like static typing, knock yourself out. If you want to use an IDE, go for it. If you want to use emacs, do it. Hell, if you like object-oriented programming, try it out. I think 95% of "object-oriented" programming (as currently practiced) is junk, but the other 5% is legiti…

Wow.

This manifesto, I believe I'll be pulling quotes out of it, for years to come.

Re: Steve Yegge: Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus

#144

Post by stock_toaster »

flatline3 wrote: post #128
jeremiep wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't disagree more with that. From reading his other essays, it's obvious the guy has a broader perspective on programming than most software developers. I believe it's experienced developers who will spread this because it takes experience in many different languages and paradigms to really understand what Steve described. I have different coding styles for Lisp, Haskell, D, Ruby and CoffeeScript for instance.…

The two-axis political classifications discards all reason and nuance in favor of us-vs-them media sound bites. The idea of applying two-axis classification to software development would laughable if it wasn't so dangerous in its attractiveness as an oversimplified tribal mental model. > Steve at least offers a classification for the different styles found in programming communities today. He may not be right on spot…

Your comment about cable news made me think. The fact that he chose a political axis, and later mentioned working on a project to make typing unecessary almost make me wonder if the choice of political axis was intentional (to stir discussion or push an agenda later).

Why not choose less loaded terms like formal/expressive like art uses?

Re: Steve Yegge: Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus

#145

Post by overgard »

flatline3 wrote: post #117
cletus wrote: post #28

As much as some commenters are (weirdly?) railing against this classification scheme I think the underlying idea that software conservatism is about risk aversion is essentially accurate. Perhaps another way of framing this is to ask the question: are you optimizing for the best case or the worst case? This ultimately is a form of risk management. And I'm not talking in the algorithmic sense, meaning complexity expre…

Yegge took a massive shit on technical discourse, and if not countered, the ramifications thereof could be felt for years . His influence is disproportional to his value, and I am extremely disappointed to see anyone here taking his emotional arguments seriously. Unless firmly censured, I expect to see Yegge's ridiculous viral meme of "liberal vs. conservative" spread and repeated by inexperienced developers indefini…

I don't see where you're getting "emotional arguments" from, the entire piece seemed more about scratching an intellectual itch more than anything else. On the other hand, it seems quite apparent he pushed the wrong emotional button on your end.

I mean his reframing is "dangerous"? Seriously? Who is in "danger"? And in danger of what? Having a contradictory viewpoint?

Re: Steve Yegge: Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus

#146

Post by mononcqc »

tesseractive wrote: post #137
flatline3 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two-axis political classifications discards all reason and nuance in favor of us-vs-them media sound bites. The idea of applying two-axis classification to software development would laughable if it wasn't so dangerous in its attractiveness as an oversimplified tribal mental model. > Steve at least offers a classification for the different styles found in programming communities today. He may not be right on spot…

My view may be colored by the fact that I'm a raging pragmatist about these sorts of issues who thinks that the right type of solution depends on the project and on the team (i.e. the right solution for mission-critical bank financial transaction processing is likely not also ideal for a high-velocity startup), but my impression was that the idea was for such an axis to be considered as a spectrum , not a simple divi…

I swear to God if someone ever asks me about political interests related to the way I develop software in an interview I'm going to take a dump on their desk.

Re: Steve Yegge: Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus

#147

Post by mathgladiator »

flatline3 wrote: post #117
cletus wrote: post #28

As much as some commenters are (weirdly?) railing against this classification scheme I think the underlying idea that software conservatism is about risk aversion is essentially accurate. Perhaps another way of framing this is to ask the question: are you optimizing for the best case or the worst case? This ultimately is a form of risk management. And I'm not talking in the algorithmic sense, meaning complexity expre…

Yegge took a massive shit on technical discourse, and if not countered, the ramifications thereof could be felt for years . His influence is disproportional to his value, and I am extremely disappointed to see anyone here taking his emotional arguments seriously. Unless firmly censured, I expect to see Yegge's ridiculous viral meme of "liberal vs. conservative" spread and repeated by inexperienced developers indefini…

Most technical discourse turns into religious zealotry, and I think Yegge's observations are relatively true.

For instance, look at all the debates on static typing versus dynamic typing. If you break it down, it boils down to aesthetics and fuzzy feeling. It really does.

Interestingly, as I've aged, I've realized that our tools don't matter. All code turns into shit. At the end of the day thou, once you pick your tools, then it's the technologists job to ship products. How we ship products doesn't matter. All that matters is that we ship.

Do customers care if the technologists were "conservative" or "liberal"? They don't.

Re: Steve Yegge: Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus

#148

Post by flatline3 »

overgard wrote: post #145
flatline3 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yegge took a massive shit on technical discourse, and if not countered, the ramifications thereof could be felt for years . His influence is disproportional to his value, and I am extremely disappointed to see anyone here taking his emotional arguments seriously. Unless firmly censured, I expect to see Yegge's ridiculous viral meme of "liberal vs. conservative" spread and repeated by inexperienced developers indefini…

I don't see where you're getting "emotional arguments" from, the entire piece seemed more about scratching an intellectual itch more than anything else. On the other hand, it seems quite apparent he pushed the wrong emotional button on your end. I mean his reframing is "dangerous"? Seriously? Who is in "danger"? And in danger of what? Having a contradictory viewpoint?

> I mean his reframing is "dangerous"? Seriously? Who is in "danger"? And in danger of what?

Danger of breaking down rational discourse and forward progress by reframing the debate in terms that leave no room for rational discourse. He's not discussing cost/benefits or reasoned analysis; he takes those as a given and attempts to recast engineering discussion as a political left vs right, with all the emotional baggage that comes with it.

It's dangerous because ideas have the power to transform minds, and irrational ideas that appeal to emotion and preconceptions are very powerful.

Re: Steve Yegge: Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus

#149

Post by mvgoogler »

justanotheratom wrote: post #129
natrius wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you click the link? I can read it in both an incognito window and logged in to a Google account without Google+.

Funny its working now. Thanks for pointing out. Do you know what the default Plus policy is - are posts public by default or the other way around?

It is completely up to the author.

When you post something you choose the set of circles you want to share the post with. One of the choices is 'public'.

There isn't really a default for this. When you open the sharebox, the set of circles is pre-populated based on who you've shared with recently.

Re: Steve Yegge: Notes from the Mystery Machine Bus

#150

Post by flatline3 »

mathgladiator wrote: post #147
flatline3 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yegge took a massive shit on technical discourse, and if not countered, the ramifications thereof could be felt for years . His influence is disproportional to his value, and I am extremely disappointed to see anyone here taking his emotional arguments seriously. Unless firmly censured, I expect to see Yegge's ridiculous viral meme of "liberal vs. conservative" spread and repeated by inexperienced developers indefini…

Most technical discourse turns into religious zealotry, and I think Yegge's observations are relatively true. For instance, look at all the debates on static typing versus dynamic typing. If you break it down, it boils down to aesthetics and fuzzy feeling. It really does. Interestingly, as I've aged, I've realized that our tools don't matter. All code turns into shit. At the end of the day thou, once you pick your to…

> For instance, look at all the debates on static typing versus dynamic typing. If you break it down, it boils down to aesthetics and fuzzy feeling. It really does.

It boils down to cost vs benefit, actual studies, and mathematical axioms, not aesthetics or feelings.

> How we ship products doesn't matter. All that matters is that we ship.

Engineering tools affect both how you ship, what you can ship, and when you can ship it. The choice isn't arbitrary, and choosing involves careful reasoned thought, informed by real experience -- not flippant arbitrary choices backed by feel-good platitudes that all approaches the same.

Post reply on HN