Clever ideas that failed (2010)

#1

Post by walrus » Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 5:19 AM UTC

Clever ideas that failed (2010)
yacoset.com

Re: Clever ideas that failed (2010)

#2

Post by dankohn1 » Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 6:27 PM UTC

This is superb. YAGNI may have it's own Wikipedia entry, but that doesn't mean that we remember it when a brilliant idea comes to mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it

Re: Clever ideas that failed (2010)

#3

Post by n3d1m » Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 6:45 PM UTC

The site responsiveness is questionable. Maybe invest some time in making in nicer looking and more responsive?

Re: Clever ideas that failed (2010)

#4

Post by kornish » Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 7:31 PM UTC

n3d1m wrote: post #3

The site responsiveness is questionable. Maybe invest some time in making in nicer looking and more responsive?

YAGNI.

Re: Clever ideas that failed (2010)

#5

Post by pier25 » Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

> "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it."

This is brilliant.

Re: Clever ideas that failed (2010)

#6

Post by senatorobama » Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 8:24 PM UTC

dankohn1 wrote: post #2

This is superb. YAGNI may have it's own Wikipedia entry, but that doesn't mean that we remember it when a brilliant idea comes to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it

All hail YAGNI, the god of code.

Re: Clever ideas that failed (2010)

#7

Post by jorjordandan » Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 8:40 PM UTC

pier25 wrote: post #5

> "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it." This is brilliant.

It is brilliant... but I think it's a false dichotomy. I'm sure code can be clever and easy to debug. If it's designed in a way that is impossible to debug is it really that clever? I've been using react and redux a lot lately, and the design patterns make the code much easier to debug, and I'm not experienced enough (and probably not even clever enough) to have written them myself. It's like saying that smart people always use big words and hard to parse sentences - it's more of a display of cleverness than actual cleverness.

Re: Clever ideas that failed (2010)

#8

Post by elvinyung » Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 8:54 PM UTC

"And, behold, I will deliver you up to the programmer tendency to build overelaborate castles of abstractions."

--- King James Programming (http://kingjamesprogramming.tumblr.com/post/136036727910/55-...)

Re: Clever ideas that failed (2010)

#9

Post by matte_black » Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 8:58 PM UTC

n3d1m wrote: post #3

The site responsiveness is questionable. Maybe invest some time in making in nicer looking and more responsive?

By the time most people realize the site is not responsive or nice looking, they have will consumed about 80% of the content they will ever consume on it. No point in making it more responsive. It’s a diminished return.

Re: Clever ideas that failed (2010)

#10

Post by nikita2206 » Mon, Dec 25, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

The first one is basically the messaging system and a smart broker. I’m not aware of any brokers that would take into account how busy a particular node (they usually just use round robin approach) but surely the concept you outlined is far from being a definition of over-engineering, cron is almost always worse because it is hardly scalable (it is with some crutches and until some point when it becomes unscalabel again, and it introduces a consistent delay).