Live data from Hacker News

John Carmack discusses the art and science of software engineering

blogs.uw.edu

71–74 of 74 posts

Re: John Carmack discusses the art and science of software engineering

#71
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Also, the smarter you are the more you tend to doubt yourself. Whereas less intelligent people tend to have more confidence in what they're doing. Bites me in the ass all the time.

The more you know, the more you know that you don't know. As you throw logs on the campfire, the perimeter of darkness grows.

As you throw logs on the campfire, the perimeter of darkness grows.

I like that one. I've always thought of knowledge as a sphere and what the surface of the sphere touches is the intersect of your knowledge with what you know and don't know. As your knowledge grows so the does the sphere and your awareness about what you do not know.

Re: John Carmack discusses the art and science of software engineering

#72
post #16
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more you know, the more you realize you don't know. That would be a great book though.

I came to that same conclusion a few years ago. Sometime in college I was pretty happy, felt I was making good progression on real knowledge in a field. Now, a few years later - I'm not sure what I know is real and true, which are high order approximations, and which are flat out wrong, but still right enough to not cause too many problems. an example: in grade school you learn how to mix colors, primary colors with…

look what shows on HN today: negative frequency for light. things really do get weird.

https://hackerne.ws/item?id=4429234

Re: John Carmack discusses the art and science of software engineering

#73
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more you know, the more you realize you don't know. That would be a great book though.

Yep. Also, the smarter you are the more you tend to doubt yourself. Whereas less intelligent people tend to have more confidence in what they're doing. Bites me in the ass all the time.

The confidence or the doubt?

Re: John Carmack discusses the art and science of software engineering

#74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if(obj == null && obj.isValid()) Why would you encounter this (often)? It seems to me that this code would never evaluate to true.

I hope he means > if (obj != null && obj.isValid()) { } Which is semantically correct due to the fail-fast evaluate of AND, it does require a double check since it's strange from a logic point of view. This is one the reasons that brace languages are hard to optimize since you can't commute things that ought to commute.

That statement can't be commuted because it expresses a concept that can't be commuted.

If the two checks were independent (pure functions), it's not difficult for a compiler to determine that given enough program visibility.

Post reply on HN