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

It's hard to write code for computers, but it's harder to write code for humans

erikbern.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 147 posts

Re: It's hard to write code for computers, but it's harder to write code for humans

#61

Post by golergka »

photonthug wrote: post #44

> “Humans learn from examples, not from “core concepts” Nitpicking maybe but I disagree with tfa on this point; not all humans work this way. Those of us who might actually prefer the general -> specific direction are already largely ignored in k12 and may only begin to thrive in higher education. Since we’re already kind of underserved, there’s no need to also deny that we exist!

I recently learned to ride with a stick, on a trip with my girlfriend and her dad. My gf just told me what to do, when to press the clutch and when to let go of it. This didn't help me at all; I didn't understand the nuances of what to do when, which things to do completely simultaneously and which to one just right after another. And then her dad chimed in, briefly explaining to me what the clutch actually does, and how does the connection between wheels and engine affect both of them. I instantly got it and didn't have to even hear instructions what to do in any particular situation. About 20 minutes later I was able to drive a car from a hand brake on a backwards slope, which is supposed to be one of the hardest things to do with a stick.

Understanding how something works from first principles is much more useful for some people, and I think that there's a lot of "some people" among the software engineers.

Re: It's hard to write code for computers, but it's harder to write code for humans

#62

Post by samatman »

The major part of this post is about documentation, and would have benefitted greatly from reference to the 4doc model: https://docs.divio.com/documentation-system/

It's basically saying: don't just provide a reference, provide how-tos as well, and lead with them because they're the part of the total documentation which users generally want to see first. Generally, mind you, I tend to go straight to the reference material but not always.

Not that 4doc is a silver bullet or a law of nature, Hillel Wayne has some good things to say about that here https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/problems-with-the-4doc-mode...

Re: It's hard to write code for computers, but it's harder to write code for humans

#63

Post by auggierose »

ulbu wrote: post #47
auggierose wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is even a headline saying "Getting started is the product". No, it is not. If your product doesn't have nice core concepts, then I don't even want to get started with it. Top-down is fine, as long as there is an actual bottom of core concepts.

again, not contradictory. have good core concepts, combine with good entry corridors. good concept with entry blocked by obtusity and esoterics is not a product ready for consumption. i didn’t see the authors suggest that good concepts are unimportant.

> Humans learn from examples, not from “core concepts”

That's a subtitle in the article, and it's wrong.

Re: It's hard to write code for computers, but it's harder to write code for humans

#64

Post by marcosdumay »

photonthug wrote: post #44

> “Humans learn from examples, not from “core concepts” Nitpicking maybe but I disagree with tfa on this point; not all humans work this way. Those of us who might actually prefer the general -> specific direction are already largely ignored in k12 and may only begin to thrive in higher education. Since we’re already kind of underserved, there’s no need to also deny that we exist!

People are really consistent on needing both of those. And practice, and studying again after practice.

How much of those things they need varies from person to person, but they always need all of them.

Re: It's hard to write code for computers, but it's harder to write code for humans

#65

Post by bigstrat2003 »

photonthug wrote: post #44

> “Humans learn from examples, not from “core concepts” Nitpicking maybe but I disagree with tfa on this point; not all humans work this way. Those of us who might actually prefer the general -> specific direction are already largely ignored in k12 and may only begin to thrive in higher education. Since we’re already kind of underserved, there’s no need to also deny that we exist!

This also stood out to me as obviously wrong in the article. Since time immemorial, we have taught math by teaching the core concepts and building on them incrementally. Since people do successfully learn how to do math, this directly disproves the author's claim that people don't learn that way.

Re: It's hard to write code for computers, but it's harder to write code for humans

#66

Post by tetha »

photonthug wrote: post #44

> “Humans learn from examples, not from “core concepts” Nitpicking maybe but I disagree with tfa on this point; not all humans work this way. Those of us who might actually prefer the general -> specific direction are already largely ignored in k12 and may only begin to thrive in higher education. Since we’re already kind of underserved, there’s no need to also deny that we exist!

This is something I'm starting to pick up and use from a mentoring and onboarding perspective. By now, I fairly openly wonder if someone needs conceptual or architectural clarification, technique on handling a thing, or a solution right there. And when we should have a follow-up call in the first two cases.

And having both thoughts and material available for a specific -> general, as well as a general -> specific path around is very good, because in more complex topics, it helps to be able to do both. Let them get a grip on some concrete things, then bring in the abstract ideas. Or let them learn the abstract concepts and show them how they can do concrete things with it.

Re: It's hard to write code for computers, but it's harder to write code for humans

#67

Post by Olshansky »

Selfless shill of a blog post I wrote & shared last week:

   Move Fast & Document Things [1]
My goal wasn't to be philosophical but share actual tips on how our small team [2] enforces (not automated, not AI, but deep, hard reviews) a culture for writing code for ourselves and each other.

All my personal friends who are engineering leaders at other orgs said "We do the same thing but you actually wrote it down".

Would appreciate ↑ if it brought anyone value!

[1] https://olshansky.substack.com/p/move-fast-and-document-thin... [2] https://github.com/pokt-network/poktroll/graphs/contributors

Re: It's hard to write code for computers, but it's harder to write code for humans

#68

Post by zelphirkalt »

CharlieDigital wrote: post #45

From Code Complete: “The smaller part of the job of programming is writing a program so that the computer can read it; the larger part is writing it so that other humans can read it.” (P.733) Has stayed with me for ~20 years.

Or from Abelson (one of the SICP authors) similar, approximately:

Code should be written for humans to understand and only lastly for computers to understand.

Re: It's hard to write code for computers, but it's harder to write code for humans

#69

Post by powersnail »

People learn things differently.

I really need the "core concept" first, before diving into examples, (unless the core concept is extremely simple).

Many tutorials are like hand-holding Lego building. Here's your Lego pieces, watch me and follow me in building this toy project, and you'll know how to Lego at the end of the day.

I just don't function very well in this model. I want to know how and why decisions are made. I want to see things from the author's perspective. I want to know how the Lego pieces each feels like, and how they connect to each other, and how you arrive at certain designs in a certain way. Trying to follow tutorials before at least some high-level, conceptual discussion, feels to me like I'm trying to reverse-engineer something that I shouldn't need to.

Most of the time if I'm approaching a new library or framework, I read read the introduction texts, and skip the "Getting started" code samples. Usually, there's going to be some sort of "Advanced" section where a lot more talking and discussing of concepts happens, and that's what I'd like to dive into first. I'll go for the API references next, try to grasp what the important interfaces look like, and finally I'll get back to the basic code samples in the beginning of the tutorial.

Re: It's hard to write code for computers, but it's harder to write code for humans

#70

Post by brugidou »

powersnail wrote: post #69

People learn things differently. I really need the "core concept" first, before diving into examples, (unless the core concept is extremely simple). Many tutorials are like hand-holding Lego building. Here's your Lego pieces, watch me and follow me in building this toy project, and you'll know how to Lego at the end of the day. I just don't function very well in this model. I want to know how and why decisions are ma…

This may be a cultural trait too. Erin Meyer in her "Culture Map" Book mentions this idea that every culture approach persuading others differently from theory-first to examples-first.
Post reply on HN