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

Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

news.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 354 posts

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#41

Post by t43562 »

alcasa wrote: post #21
rdevilla wrote: post #16

I suspect this is why formal languages exist; as a sieve to keep the hordes of fools at bay, and a system for turning bullshit into parse errors. We are undoing much of this progress by now insisting everything be expressed in natural language for a machine to translate on our behalf, like a tour guide. The natives will continue to speak amongst themselves in their mother tongue.

Maybe controversial, but I believe a lot of OOP/Clean Code patterns are the software equivalent of corporate BS.

I think it's more the idea that if using a pattern is good then using all of them at once is even better.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#42

Post by VorpalWay »

eucyclos wrote: post #35

I thought tfa would say seeking synergy is a sign one is struggling with ones own deliverables so one tries to add value elsewhere in the organization. Is synergy really such a poorly defined term that it's synonymous with corporate bullshit?

Yes. (There are other phrases too that should be red flags such as "strategizing", but "synergy" is probably the poster child).

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#43

Post by CGMthrowaway »

rdevilla wrote: post #16

I suspect this is why formal languages exist; as a sieve to keep the hordes of fools at bay, and a system for turning bullshit into parse errors. We are undoing much of this progress by now insisting everything be expressed in natural language for a machine to translate on our behalf, like a tour guide. The natives will continue to speak amongst themselves in their mother tongue.

>a sieve to keep the hordes of fools at bay

Corporate speak as a signalling mechanism is only effective among the "clueless" in the Gervais model. If any CEO tried to talk 1:1 to a competent board member that way, they would lose all credibility. Once you've operated at a certain level you get it

>a system for turning bullshit into parse errors.

This is the (cynical version of) the framing I tend to hold about corporate speak. It's deliberately vague as a way to navigate uncertainty while still projecting authority and avoiding accountability in settings like a town hall, large meeting etc. Which is not to be read as a necessarily "bad" thing. No one wants a micromanaging CEO. They have to set vision and direction while leaving space for it top be executed by all the layers under them

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#45

Post by Intermernet »

andai wrote: post #26

I found this title amusing, since I'm actually synergizing paradigms, i.e. trying to find the commonalities between different models of human behavior. (There are dozens of us!)

Yes, but have you decoded the ontological kerygma of the gestalt. No point synergizing paradigms unless you've got the kerygma sorted.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#46

Post by Hamuko »

eucyclos wrote: post #35

I thought tfa would say seeking synergy is a sign one is struggling with ones own deliverables so one tries to add value elsewhere in the organization. Is synergy really such a poorly defined term that it's synonymous with corporate bullshit?

I feel like "synergy" has been the poster child for corporate buzzwords.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#47

Post by glitchc »

alcasa wrote: post #21
rdevilla wrote: post #16

I suspect this is why formal languages exist; as a sieve to keep the hordes of fools at bay, and a system for turning bullshit into parse errors. We are undoing much of this progress by now insisting everything be expressed in natural language for a machine to translate on our behalf, like a tour guide. The natives will continue to speak amongst themselves in their mother tongue.

Maybe controversial, but I believe a lot of OOP/Clean Code patterns are the software equivalent of corporate BS.

Why is OOP lumped with Clean Code? Objects are useful for managing complex states and relationships. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive, to procedural and functional programming.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#49

Post by Aeolun »

alcasa wrote: post #21
rdevilla wrote: post #16

I suspect this is why formal languages exist; as a sieve to keep the hordes of fools at bay, and a system for turning bullshit into parse errors. We are undoing much of this progress by now insisting everything be expressed in natural language for a machine to translate on our behalf, like a tour guide. The natives will continue to speak amongst themselves in their mother tongue.

Maybe controversial, but I believe a lot of OOP/Clean Code patterns are the software equivalent of corporate BS.

When applied without thinking about why. Yes.

Except dependency injection. I really can’t imagine why you’d ever not use that. I suppose it’s possible to overuse, but you’d still have better code than without. Certainly more testable code.

Re: Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

#50

Post by kdfjgbdfkjgb »

glitchc wrote: post #47
alcasa wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe controversial, but I believe a lot of OOP/Clean Code patterns are the software equivalent of corporate BS.

Why is OOP lumped with Clean Code? Objects are useful for managing complex states and relationships. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive, to procedural and functional programming.

I think they meant "OOP patterns". Not that I agree with them
Post reply on HN