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

61–70 of 354 posts

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

#61

Post by hibikir »

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.

OOP pattern were useful for people stuck in a pure OOP language (say Java 1.4) And needed to make something understandable. Today, when many languages, including Java, have reasonable functional programming support, a large percentage of the patterns are over complicated. Just look at the list, and see how many can be replaced with less boilerplate by passing a function, doing some currying, or both.

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

#63

Post by ansgri »

delecti wrote: post #28
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.

I worked with a junior dev who suddenly got really excited about Clean Code. Every example he brought up left me feeling that there was a kernel of good advice, but the book wanted you to take it to such an extreme that it would result in shitty code.

I feel like half of junior programmers are susceptible to this.

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

#65

Post by Clent »

Aeolun wrote: post #52
RobotToaster wrote: post #18

To analyse the impact of this study I recommend that we set up an interdepartmental committee with fairly broad terms of reference so that at the end of the day we'll be in the position to think through the various implications and arrive at a decision based on long-term considerations rather than rush prematurely into precipitate and possibly ill-conceived action which might well have unforeseen repercussions.

Translation: Lets think about it before we do stupid shit.

Outcome: Fail to think about it, only do stupid shit.

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

#66

Post by domga »

antonymoose wrote: post #58
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.

Wildly controversial! I look at OOP Patterns as standards and practices. The same way we have building codes for staircases the framing of walls and electrical installations to prevent injury or collapse or fire. Sure, you can dodge a lot of design pattern paradigms and still make a working application that makes money. You can also invent your own system when building your house and maybe nothing bad will happen. Th…

A decent chunk of OOP patterns was due to lack of language features, notably passing and returning functions

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

#67

Post by hibikir »

NoSalt wrote: post #55

"synergistic leadership" or "growth-hacking paradigms" are, in my opinion, what my teenage son refers to as "brain rot". I don't know where these people come from who make up these terms, or what childhood trauma has done this to them, but I absolutely cannot tolerate any of it, it makes my skin crawl.

It's a bit better: They are forms of obfuscation and lowering information in a channel. They are designed for environments where being clear is very risky. In certain organizations, you are better off being unclear than asking for approval or consensus on a tricky decision: You produce an incomprehensible, vague mess of a message, and avoid argument, as argument in those places leads to paralysis.

Now, does this mean it's the right way to talk everywhere? Of course not. And since it's often seen as safe, it's overused. But it doesn't just arise, as a bug. plain language that means what it says creates more conflict, and isn't always better.

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

#68

Post by AreShoesFeet000 »

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.

There are no natives anymore. For some time, really. Honestly I don’t even think there ever were.

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

#69

Post by Scarblac »

Aeolun wrote: post #49
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.

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.

Because code becomes harder to understand.

With direct dependencies, if you are trying to understand some code that calls some function and what it does exactly isn't completely obvious, you can press a button to go to it, understand it, and come back.

With dependency injection it depends on what is going to be inserted during runtime, so you can't.

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

#70

Post by irishcoffee »

domga wrote: post #66
antonymoose wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wildly controversial! I look at OOP Patterns as standards and practices. The same way we have building codes for staircases the framing of walls and electrical installations to prevent injury or collapse or fire. Sure, you can dodge a lot of design pattern paradigms and still make a working application that makes money. You can also invent your own system when building your house and maybe nothing bad will happen. Th…

A decent chunk of OOP patterns was due to lack of language features, notably passing and returning functions

Are you referring to function pointers?

I believe C has allowed passing and returning functions from... the jump, no?

Post reply on HN