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

I’m not really a good web developer, I'm just good at Googling things

dev-diaries.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 229 posts

Re: I’m not really a good web developer, I'm just good at Googling things

#91

Post by faissaloo »

badatshipping wrote: post #66

This just shows how shallow web programming is in intellectual content. If your expertise consists of stuff that can be looked up on the fly, all you need to join the field is a high enough IQ to comprehend those ideas at all. There’s no need for deep thinking or mastery. In what other technical field can you simply google everything? And is that because other fields are merely more obscure, or because they’re actual…

>This just shows how shallow web programming is in intellectual content.

Not really, the same rule applies for a hell of alot of other things.

>And is that because other fields are merely more obscure, or because they’re actually harder? It's simply because other fields don't have the same knowledge sharing culture and you end up having to use SciHub and doing the knowledge sharing yourself.

>Could one be a mathematician or physicist by googling things?

I think a number of fundamental cultural problems with mathematics needs to be fixed before this is viable for the broader population, but I do think it may become the case over time.

Re: I’m not really a good web developer, I'm just good at Googling things

#92

Post by braythwayt »

antisemiotic wrote: post #81
braythwayt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who writes blog posts littered with irrelevant pictures (but never on Medium!), I acknowledge your experience trying to solve a problem based on a blog post. Manpages and documentation are written to be references. Blog posts are written to be tutorials. They have different affordances, and as a result it is very hard to learn how to use something purely from a reference, and very different to sol…

This doesn't change the fact that irrelevant pictures (like memes and cheap popcultural references) belong neither in references nor blogposts, they're just a waste of time and bandwidth. Tone is a different matter, tutorials sure can be more lighthearted. But I'd still take a dry tutorial instead of forced, stillborn humor any day. (I'm not sure if the latter kind is all that common in the wild, could be an illusion…

As an author, that’s my decision to make about my blog posts. My choice of pictures belong in my blog posts, much as my choice of chords belong in my musical compositions.

It’s a perfectly valid choice to write essays that are hyper-focused on just teaching the facts as efficiently as possible, but that isn’t some kind of universal rule that must be applied to all essays.

I personally don’t care for the popular “American Folksy” style of essay that is heavy on the author’s journey to learn the thing it purports to teach, but I wouldn’t dictate that nobody should write in that style.

There are no gatekeepers to writing words, just as there are no gatekeepers to writing code. That has its benefits, aand its hazards.

Re: I’m not really a good web developer, I'm just good at Googling things

#94

Post by robocat »

fencepost wrote: post #62

I know folks who've gotten pushback from clients of "I'm not paying you to just Google things, fix my problem!" My recommended response is "Nope, you're paying me to understand what's happening, look for possibly relevant information about why , understand what results are and are not relevant, and apply what I've looked up."

It feels weird when you go to a doctor and they start googling in front of you, for what seems something relatively common and simple.

Re: I’m not really a good web developer, I'm just good at Googling things

#95

Post by imjustsaying »

k__ wrote: post #10
klez wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. Even MDs, despite all their years of study don't have all the procedures and possible diagnoses in their heads all the time and need to read literature and consult with other physicians to reach conclusions. I'm not sure why people think software development (and computers in general) is somehow different. We don't know everything. We basically can't . What we (and all other professions) have is knowledge…

I allergic to Amoxicillin and always get irritated looks when I tell this a doctor. They usually have to search for an alternative in books, because they don't know them from the top of their heads.

This is also partly why specialists exist. An infectious disease DO/MD would know both what the alternative would be and possibly even the appropriate dose calculation off the top of their head because antibiotic management is their bread and butter.

If the physician you were at felt unable to make the right call, he could have referred you to or consulted with someone who could. An 'irritated look' might instead be a flurry of such treatment paths going through their mind.

'Can I figure this out on my own? Should I consult? Should I refer out? Should I just check UpToDate? What does the latest literature I read say to do? What was done for the last patient who had this? Has the literature changed since then? What is the hospital policy on this (if any?)? What did my microbiology class say to do for this? What do the boards think is right to do in this instance?'

Re: I’m not really a good web developer, I'm just good at Googling things

#96

Post by thrower123 »

This is my life. Apparently it is what sets me apart from most people; somehow I'm blessed with this ability to read things, highlight them, hit CTRL-C, open a web browser, hit CTRL-V, and hit enter. Most people, according to my empirical studies, are simply not capable of doing this...

I wish I was being snarky, but this is literally true

Re: I’m not really a good web developer, I'm just good at Googling things

#97

Post by bobthepanda »

jim-jim-jim wrote: post #28

One of the things I don't like about webdev (among many) is that I even have to Google in the first place. Manpages are so much more immediate and accessible. I also think that anything js-adjacent has a real culture problem. Trying to dredge an answer out of a Medium tutorial written in a cloying tone and interspersed with pointless gifs can be such a groan enducing experience. I'm hoping that the community will mat…

The MDN is a pretty good reference complete with availability tables for browsers.

The problem with a reference is that a lot of times browsers do quirky things and things that are essentially browser-specific bugs aren’t documented in a reference.

Re: I’m not really a good web developer, I'm just good at Googling things

#98

Post by bdcravens »

jim-jim-jim wrote: post #28

One of the things I don't like about webdev (among many) is that I even have to Google in the first place. Manpages are so much more immediate and accessible. I also think that anything js-adjacent has a real culture problem. Trying to dredge an answer out of a Medium tutorial written in a cloying tone and interspersed with pointless gifs can be such a groan enducing experience. I'm hoping that the community will mat…

I feel this is less the case than it was a few years ago, but a lot of the same complaints can apply to the Rails ecosystem.

Re: I’m not really a good web developer, I'm just good at Googling things

#100

Post by fencepost »

robocat wrote: post #94
fencepost wrote: post #62

I know folks who've gotten pushback from clients of "I'm not paying you to just Google things, fix my problem!" My recommended response is "Nope, you're paying me to understand what's happening, look for possibly relevant information about why , understand what results are and are not relevant, and apply what I've looked up."

It feels weird when you go to a doctor and they start googling in front of you, for what seems something relatively common and simple.

I'd rather they be searching in UpToDate.com, but one of the most important things in diagnosis is the ability to filter available information and determine relevance. If you have identifiable symptoms that don't fit with the "hoofbeats means a horse" common diagnosis then someone able to take that starting point and get other possibilities to evaluate is good to have.
Post reply on HN