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

81–90 of 354 posts

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

#81

Post by hsuduebc2 »

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.

I believe it's more like formal letter, or prefilled form where you only fill data when required. It actually can be useful.

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

#82

Post by throwway120385 »

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

The language feature isn't "passing and returning functions" but "loose coupling." Lambdas and Functors are just a way to represent that in OOP languages that care more about inheritance than about messaging.

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

#83

Post by hsuduebc2 »

>Overall, the findings suggest that while “synergizing cross-collateralization” might sound impressive in a boardroom, this functionally misleading language can create an informational blindfold in corporate cultures

I believe this is the whole point. To confuse listeners and subtly manipulate them into thinking that they don't understand so they will stay quiet. Politicians do absolutely the same, in today's world it's called "smoke screen".

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

#84

Post by layer8 »

throwway120385 wrote: post #80
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…

Design Patterns is more like the Human Factors and Ergonomics Handbook. You can have your building engineered, in which case building walls out of 2x6's 16 inches on center is not off the table, but neither is a mortise and tenon timber frame with partition walls. In that paradigm, the code tries not to be descriptive of an exact technique but only gives you criteria to satisfy. For example you could run all of your…

I disagree with that take. Design patterns are a language for (= give standard names to) patterns that tend to repeatedly occur in code, so that we can efficiently communicate about them. Programmers working in the respective contexts tend to reinvent them sooner or later if they don’t know them already, so it makes sense to circulate the knowledge about them. But that doesn’t mean that they are prescriptive.

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

#86

Post by layer8 »

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.

Unless you mean just regular constructor parameters, dependency injection in the sense of a runtime dependency injection framework is the one thing I try to avoid like the plague.

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

#90

Post by jonahx »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #43
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.

>a sieve to keep the hordes of fools at bay Corporate speak as a signalling mechanism is only effective among the "clueless" in the Gervais model. If any CEO tried to talk 1:1 to a competent board member that way, they would lose all credibility. Once you've operated at a certain level you get it >a system for turning bullshit into parse errors. This is the (cynical version of) the framing I tend to hold about corpor…

> They have to set vision and direction

A prime example of corporate speak that is, as you rightly said, 'only effective among the "clueless"'

Post reply on HN