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

Code is run more than read (2023)

olano.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 110 posts

Re: Code is run more than read (2023)

#61

Post by Arch-TK »

its_ethan wrote: post #52
Arch-TK wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have magic oil filters which last even 22k miles. You should be replacing them every 6 months / 6k miles, or 12 months / 12k miles depending on your risk tolerance (some people suggest even half my short interval). Anyone who actually drives their car regularly will be doing an oil change at least twice a year. If an oil change takes more than 30 minutes of actual labour time of an inexperienced mechanic, it…

I'm just gonna copy and paste a response to another similar comment: The point that I am making (obviously, I think) is that tradeoffs exist, even if you don't think the right decision was made, your full view into the trade space is likely incomplete, or prioritizes something different than the engineers. Putting some random number of hypothetical mpg improvement was clearly a mistake, but I assumed people here woul…

You can also read my reply in my other comment.

But to keep it concise: The core problem is that you are stating a truism in response to a famous counter-example to specifically that truism. The other problem being that you are stating a truism which everyone else is already familiar with.

Re: Code is run more than read (2023)

#62

Post by its_ethan »

Arch-TK wrote: post #60
its_ethan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry we're talking about a hypothetical car engine, and as an analogy to software development. I'm not an expert in designing car engines like you, but acting like this example being not fully realistic is some kind of "gotcha" for the point I'm making is really frustrating. The point that I am making (obviously, I think) is that tradeoffs exist, even if you don't think the right decision was made, your full view in…

You made a "well actually" comment in which you demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the topic, _and_ stated a truism which didn't apply to the thing you were replying to. Yes, I'm sure most people on this website have ran into seemingly bad design choices which made sense once they knew more context. But that doesn't mean that all bad design choices are like this. Specifically dumb oil filter placement is an examp…

> Yes, I'm sure most people on this website have ran into seemingly bad design choices which made sense once they knew more context. But that doesn't mean that all bad design choices are like this.

I'm literally just saying the yin to this yang. Just because you run into a design that feels malicious doesn't mean that it always is.

Again, sorry for the sin of trying to make an analogy/example of something I'm not an expert in. You can rest easy at night knowing I'll never do it again.

You also pretty neatly laid out how re-using an existing design meant for a different car leads to some benefits to the end customer. Sure the full cost savings don't ever make it to the buyer, but there's still net wins in not spinning up new manufacturing processes (as you say). So I'm not sure why you're coming at this so combatively? Because I dared float the idea that maybe it's an engine efficiency thing we're unaware of, instead of part re-use cost/lead time efficiency improvement? Again, sorry for stepping outside of my lane...

Re: Code is run more than read (2023)

#63

Post by btown »

> But when you run your code in production, the KISS mantra takes on a new dimension. It’s not just about code anymore; it’s about reducing the moving parts and understanding their failure modes.

This sentence, itself, takes on new meaning in the age of agentic coding. "I'm fine with treating this new feature as greenfield even if it reimplements existing code, because the LLM will handle ensuring the new code meets biz and user expectations" is fine in isolation... but it may mean that the code does not benefit from shared patterns for observability, traffic shaping, debugging, and more.

And if the agent inlines code that itself had a bug, that later proves to be a root cause, the amount of code that needs to be found and fixed in an outage situation is not only larger but more inscrutable.

Using the OOP's terminology, where biz > user > ops > dev is ideal, this is a dev > ops style failure that goes far beyond "runs on my machine" towards a notion of "is only maintainable in isolation."

Luckily, we have 1M context windows now! We can choose to say: "Meticulously explore the full codebase for ways we might be able to refactor this prototype to reuse existing functionality, patterns, and services, with an eye towards maintainability by other teams." But that requires discipline, foresight, and clock-time.

Re: Code is run more than read (2023)

#64

Post by a4isms »

Arch-TK wrote: post #44
wiseowise wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you happen to own a repair shop, you can make a fortune from drivers who don’t know how to do it. Wink.

Repair shop owners also don't enjoy work which is unnecessarily difficult. Between rebuilding an engine and disassembling a bumper to replace a lightbulb most mechanics would genuinely rather be doing the lengthy but interesting work of rebuilding an engine than the lengthy and fucking boring task of disassembling a bumper to fix a lightbulb. Moreover, even if a mechanic must charge you stupid amounts of labour cost…

Between rebuilding an engine and disassembling a bumper to replace a lightbulb most mechanics would genuinely rather be doing the lengthy but interesting work of rebuilding an engine than the lengthy and fucking boring task of disassembling a bumper to fix a lightbulb.

ChatGPT, write me a 2010-style Hacker News front page essay about how software maintenance is just like automobile maintenance, and why nobody wants low-value maintenance work to be arduous, failure-prone, and boring.

Re: Code is run more than read (2023)

#66

Post by 9rx »

carefree-bob wrote: post #28
batisteo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most cars sold in the US are not aerodynamic so it seems a couple of mpg isn't the focus anyway

The US is filled with bubble cars like everywhere else. There isn't really much difference between cars across the world. Well, China is unique with like 100 automakers all searching for customers, but for most of the world, it's Toyota, VW, Hyundai/Kia, Stellantis, GM, Renault/Nissan, Ford as the top global producers and they sell everywhere. Sure there are some special models in local markets, but those are mostly…

> Along with the "Bees are disappearing" scare, which was just measurement error

Or fixed? The suspected cause at the time was pneumatic planter dust-off and addressing that was as simple as adding a baffle to direct the dust to the ground, so it was quickly adopted once identified.

Re: Code is run more than read (2023)

#67

Post by its_ethan »

Arch-TK wrote: post #61
its_ethan wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just gonna copy and paste a response to another similar comment: The point that I am making (obviously, I think) is that tradeoffs exist, even if you don't think the right decision was made, your full view into the trade space is likely incomplete, or prioritizes something different than the engineers. Putting some random number of hypothetical mpg improvement was clearly a mistake, but I assumed people here woul…

You can also read my reply in my other comment. But to keep it concise: The core problem is that you are stating a truism in response to a famous counter-example to specifically that truism. The other problem being that you are stating a truism which everyone else is already familiar with.

Given how many people have seemingly jumped on misinterpreting the truism as me making some claim of a specific fuel efficiency improvement, I'd disagree with people being already familiar with it.

To be concise as well: it's been duly noted by me that contributing to a conversation by attempting to bring in nuance is not always well received when you make up a hypothetical for a topic people are very touchy about.

Re: Code is run more than read (2023)

#69

Post by zahlman »

alexpotato wrote: post #7

I've worked at some of the "top tier" finance firms over the years. It is absolutely astounding how much of them run on code that is: - very reliable aka it almost never breaks/fails - written in ways that makes you wonder what series of events led to such awful code For example: - A deployment system that used python to read and respond to raw HTTP requests. If you triggered a deployment, you had to leave the webpag…

> Python code written in Java OOP style where every function call had to be traced up and down through four levels of abstraction

To be fair, the standard library `unittest` and `logging`, along with the historic `distutils`/Setuptools stack, are hardly any better.

Re: Code is run more than read (2023)

#70

Post by bluGill »

Arch-TK wrote: post #47
its_ethan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if there's an efficiency in engine design by placing the filter in the middle that leads to a +2mpg improvement for the driver? Or that it fails, on average, 22k miles later into it's life? Not all hard-to-repair-yourself designs are malicious...

We don't have magic oil filters which last even 22k miles. You should be replacing them every 6 months / 6k miles, or 12 months / 12k miles depending on your risk tolerance (some people suggest even half my short interval). Anyone who actually drives their car regularly will be doing an oil change at least twice a year. If an oil change takes more than 30 minutes of actual labour time of an inexperienced mechanic, it…

> We don't have magic oil filters which last even 22k miles. You should be replacing them every 6 months / 6k miles, or 12 months / 12k miles depending on your risk tolerance (some people suggest even half my short interval).

We do - they are just a lot bigger.

You should replace the oil filter when it is no longer filtering. Replacing it early is a pure waste of money. Unfortunately the tests of do you need to change the oil filter is more expensive than just replacing the filter so just replace it before it can possibly be clogged is the right answer. Generally the manufactures recommendations are correct and you should follow what they say unless you have lab results that say otherwise.

Post reply on HN