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

We are done with “Hacking”

cacm.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: We are done with “Hacking”

#61

Post by meesterdude »

wellpast wrote: post #43
meesterdude wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would go further to say that a mathematical understanding or at least inclination is required to write maintainable code. Maintainable code is more an act of writing than of mathematics.

And (good) writing is more an act of mathematics than what most people would construe.

uh... no. Not that there aren't mathematics found within writing, but that argument is irrelevant to this evaluation of taking a mathmatical, formulaic approach to code vs. one that is descriptive, and caters to the ignorances and shortcomings of the human reader.

Re: We are done with “Hacking”

#62

Post by Svoka »

Author, Yegor Bugayenko, is misogynist in worst of it. I listened to him being guest on a podcast, where he told that women brain is unfit to perform logical tasks, like coding or planning, and that women are much more fit at home kitchen than in any office. And I wish I was exaggerating, but one of the hosts was female programmer and he tried to convince her that she's inferior as professional because of her gender.

Re: We are done with “Hacking”

#63

Post by mordae »

hackermailman wrote: post #16
commandlinefan wrote: post #3

> This programming bible earned a famous comment from Bill Gates: "It took incredible discipline, and several months, for me to read it." I know he's a trillionaire and all and probably smarter than me but still - as somebody who spent a full three years reading and working through the problems in the first three books, I wonder how deep an understanding he could really have walked away with after just a few months.

I believe that quote just references Vol 1, not 2 and 3 so 'several months' it's doable.

... Without doing the proofs.

Re: We are done with “Hacking”

#64

Post by rboyd »

paulpauper wrote: post #17

They have to know how to get help outside of an office or even a project team when working remotely and alone. Aside from Stack Overflow, which dominates the Q&A platform for programming market, there are documentation and code repositories that a professional programmer must know how to navigate. Those who previously only relied on colleagues and friends will now lose to those who know how to learn from the entire I…

From a quick scan of your comments on this page, if Donald Knuth came in for a job interview at your office you would 1) encourage him to spend less time on algorithms and more time learning "hard" stuff like ajax+css+php. 2) offer him $90k if he passed the rest of the interview. 3) fire him on his first day if he googled anything.

Re: We are done with “Hacking”

#65

Post by afandian »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #58
afandian wrote: post #47

Long shot, as this is a CACM article. Does anyone in Oxford UK want a 2ft foot worth of paper CACM editions from 2012 to 2015 in Oxford UK? I have been avoiding throwing them out but now getting round to it. Let me know.

If nobody takes them, there’s gotta be a small library somewhere that would accept them, or even one of those Little Free Libraries (if you have them there).

We have a local library run by the council, but I'm not sure if they'd take donations like this. Can't hurt to ask, I suppose.

Then there's the countless libraries in the University of Oxford, some of which might want to stock it, but I'd be surprised if they didn't either already.

Re: We are done with “Hacking”

#66

Post by hazeii »

>In order to win in this war, programmers had to be both trained and talented in computer science...

Being long enough in the tooth to have been 'hacking' back then, I'd strongly disagree with that since - and rather obviously given the era - there was little training to be had.

Rather, I'd characterise it as being a time where anyone (irrespective of talent or training) could get their own computer and be the master of it.

Personally, I resent the system trying to take that control away from us (in this case, trying to pass us from an age of controlling our own computers to having to be licensed, controlled and directed in what we can do with them).

Re: We are done with “Hacking”

#67

Post by wellpast »

meesterdude wrote: post #61
wellpast wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And (good) writing is more an act of mathematics than what most people would construe.

uh... no. Not that there aren't mathematics found within writing, but that argument is irrelevant to this evaluation of taking a mathmatical, formulaic approach to code vs. one that is descriptive, and caters to the ignorances and shortcomings of the human reader.

Serious question: How much writing have you done? I'm not at all talking about writing about mathematics. I'm talking about the structure of good writing, from fiction to blog writing and everything in between--all of which, when done well, require economy, form, structure and order. Talking to many writers -- from successful screenwriters to blog writers, I find the same theme: a very deliberate awareness of the mathematical structure of their work when that work is finally "working".

Re: We are done with “Hacking”

#68

Post by edflsafoiewq »

gjvc wrote: post #2

The author of that piece quotes EWD, but not in full, which is odd -- were he to have done so, it would have strengthened his thesis, viz.: "Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better." -- Edsger W. Dijkstra

"Almost anything in software can be implemented, sold, and even used given enough determination. There is nothing a mere scientist can say that will stand against the flood of a hundred million dollars. But there is one quality that cannot be purchased in this way - and that is reliability. The price of reliability is the pursuit of the utmost simplicity. It is a price which the very rich find most hard to pay."

-– C.A.R. Hoare

Re: We are done with “Hacking”

#69

Post by UncleEntity »

paulpauper wrote: post #17

They have to know how to get help outside of an office or even a project team when working remotely and alone. Aside from Stack Overflow, which dominates the Q&A platform for programming market, there are documentation and code repositories that a professional programmer must know how to navigate. Those who previously only relied on colleagues and friends will now lose to those who know how to learn from the entire I…

TFA's major argument is coders are really just library stringertogetherers these days so your example programmer would be required to memorize the documentation for every dependency in order to pass muster by your standard.

Re: We are done with “Hacking”

#70

Post by l_t »

meesterdude wrote: post #38
wellpast wrote: post #15

> Programmers have to know how to write maintainable code... He implies that this somehow falls into “socitech” ability, which it is not. Maintainable code is precise, well-factored code — almost pedantic — which requires an orthogonal (if not counterpointed) talent to the more “social” talents. I would go further to say that a mathematical understanding or at least inclination is required to write maintainable code.…

> I would go further to say that a mathematical understanding or at least inclination is required to write maintainable code. Maintainable code is more an act of writing than of mathematics.

I think about defining the "maintainability" of code as a reduction in the amount of time that will be spent working on that code in the future. Therefore, there are two broad categories of maintainability fixes:

1. To reduce the number of changes that will need to be made to it.

2. To reduce the time it takes to make each change.

The (1) category encompasses the idea of making code that requires few changes. Such code is essentially "right" to begin with. I think about this mostly in terms of models -- i.e. does it accurately model the problem -- and quality -- i.e. does it have bugs or performance issues. Of course there are other concerns as well, but those are two big ones and they often involve thinking like a "computer scientist."

The (2) category -- reducing the effort of changes -- is achieved by using appropriate abstraction layers, encapsulation, low coupling, and other good-program design. There are many technical concerns in this category, but it seems there are some social ones as well.

I would say the programmer's experience is another huge factor. To sum it up in a phrase, perhaps "writing maintainable code is an act of prediction."

Post reply on HN