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

Fashionable Problems

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 195 posts

Re: Fashionable Problems

#171

Post by beat »

nl wrote: post #114
stephenamills wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ideas that diverged too much from the existing successful tech had a huge obstacle in their way: they had to recreate all of the existing solutions in their new model.” You’re so right! There are great examples of companies that preserved the existing ecosystem of solutions (Facebook with PHP, Microsoft with C++, Google with Java and C++, maybe also Amazon with Perl 5 and C++). There are also great examples of succe…

It's almost like language choice doesn't matter at all...

Language choice is an implementation detail. As long as the language isn't technically unable to do the job (ie you can't write a device driver in Python), it doesn't matter much. It may be intensely interesting to practitioners, but it's not a make or break decision. Use what makes the team comfortable.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#172

Post by hadiz »

seriesf wrote: post #61
stephenamills wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ideas that diverged too much from the existing successful tech had a huge obstacle in their way: they had to recreate all of the existing solutions in their new model.” You’re so right! There are great examples of companies that preserved the existing ecosystem of solutions (Facebook with PHP, Microsoft with C++, Google with Java and C++, maybe also Amazon with Perl 5 and C++). There are also great examples of succe…

The fact that many large and lucrative code bases are written in c++ should disabuse you of the idea that c++ is suicidal.

Modern c++ is pretty good, honestly. With the power of STL, you can so many neat things, and make beautiful code. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUEnO6SvAMo

Re: Fashionable Problems

#173

Post by hadiz »

ahartmetz wrote: post #168
Laakeri wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why C++ string class is useless?

It's basically no better than vector - i.e. it has no Unicode support whatsoever and very few string-specific convenience methods. Using algorithms is possible, but tedious. Because I often work with Qt, I'm comparing it with QString, which is much more than a vector of chars. https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qstring.html

Well, you just kinda answered your question. There is STL, Qt and Boost. Like all other languages. They do the same thing but in different capacities, you should select based on your needs. I think std::string can be supplemented for Unicode support, I am gonna say the fmt library was the supplement but I feel like I am wrong.

I used std::string and QString extensively for 4-5 years and find QString inexplicably bloated and un-intuitive for my use cases.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#174

Post by shafyy »

account73466 wrote: post #58
majos wrote: post #42

This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim: > I've seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they've all worked on similar things. Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: "If only other people understood what…

I am wondering how far the essay would go if it were not from PG.

Haha, I was wondering the same. Probably not that far. But at the same time, it is important who says what, so you can't just ignore that.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#175

Post by hadiz »

majos wrote: post #42

This post sorely lacks evidence for its big first claim: > I've seen a similar pattern in many different fields: even though lots of people have worked hard in the field, only a small fraction of the space of possibilities has been explored, because they've all worked on similar things. Anyone want to step in with some examples? Without them, the thrust of the essay seems to be: "If only other people understood what…

I might be overgeneralizing, but I feel like 10-15 years ago everyone wanted to do wireless communications, now everyone wants to do AI, and probably in a few years everyone wants to do Blockchain or something else. I kinda find it hard to believe that those people are all passionate about the field, not the massive career opportunities.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#176

Post by ojilles »

Aloha wrote: post #142
warent wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This here is the real danger. Many people choose to reinvent the wheel and end up finding out that their approach was actually horribly flawed compared to what already existed, or they turned out not to have the resources to see it through. It takes a brilliant person with a lot of luck to make this work in an advantageous way. Two great examples come to mind right away, both from Elon Musk. SpaceX was founded on fir…

I think the older and more competitive a space is, the less likely a first principles approach will bring success.

Perhaps it’s not the age per se, but the amount of players over time. (Number of car manufacturers >> space companies).

Re: Fashionable Problems

#177

Post by rbavocadotree »

chasedehan wrote: post #74
rbavocadotree wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two areas where I have a little experience: Economics: There are surprisingly little people studying very large, grand, topics such an inequality. You've probably heard of the handful of economists that do. It's unfashionable due to the influence of the Chicago school and it's focus on free market principles, as well as many other factors. Physics: Good luck getting any interest or funding if you are not studying the…

There are a large number of people working on inequality. The two most common fields studying it are: 1) Development 2) Labor Although there are a number of Macro-Economists who have studied the impact of inequality on growth. The reason you may not read about it is that the relationship between inequality and growth is a largely "solved" problem. It is "unfashionable" because of that.

The fact that the field thinks it is a solved problem is a marvelous example of what the essay is talking about!

Re: Fashionable Problems

#178

Post by rbavocadotree »

cambalache wrote: post #79
rbavocadotree wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two areas where I have a little experience: Economics: There are surprisingly little people studying very large, grand, topics such an inequality. You've probably heard of the handful of economists that do. It's unfashionable due to the influence of the Chicago school and it's focus on free market principles, as well as many other factors. Physics: Good luck getting any interest or funding if you are not studying the…

Both examples are wrong. Lots of economists working on inequality , it is even a hot topic. Your physics example is so vague that is meaningless. Name one promising theory/approach in physics which is not getting interest because it goes against "the currently dominant theory of the field".Tip: LQG does not count.

No, lots of economists don't. Especially considering how important of a problem it is. It's a "hot topic" because of public opinion at the moment. We have not been attacking it in new and creative ways for decades.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#179

Post by the_af »

ahartmetz wrote: post #158
pnako wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, C++ developers (like me) are stupid. We're like primitive species, stuck with C++ because we can't understand superior languages. The Lisp developers tried to bring us the light, but we chased them away by throwing rocks at them. Now the Rust evangelists are doing the same thing, but I'm afraid we might take a break from writing video games, stock exchange software, safety-critical software, CAD packages,…

Dunno. As a mainly C++ developer I think Rust is a real alternative because it tries to solve the same problems better. Lisp and Haskell do not solve the same problems. Huge Lisp codebases probably become hard to understand quickly, and both Lisp and Haskell don't produce very efficient code (or make it hard to produce efficient code).

> "[Lisp and] Haskell don't produce very efficient code (or make it hard to produce efficient code)."

Curious here. Are you speaking from experience -- i.e. you tried and failed -- or is this simply something you guess must be true? People write high-performance software in Haskell, and it's their tool of choice.

Re: Fashionable Problems

#180

Post by drewbug »

darksaints wrote: post #104
thaumasiotes wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An interesting theory as to why we never evolved with wheels is the idea that an evolutionary improvement requires a viable intermediate state Not really; wheels aren't an improvement in the first place so there is no need to explain why they didn't develop. Note that it's easy to make robots that use wheels, and difficult to make robots that use legs, but we make legged robots anyway so that they'll be able to han…

Okay, but evolution has given us some pretty expansive diversity in traits across the biological world. No single trait is pareto optimal, but relatively superior/inferior depending on context. Wheels have some pretty extreme efficiency advantages, useful for both speed as well as endurance. They come with disadvantages too, but there are plenty of animals who never need to leave environments where legs are optimal o…

"Many bacteria are equipped with a flagellum, a helical propeller that allows bacteria to travel."
Post reply on HN