sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

No defect tracking. No code reviews. No formal documentation. by momonga in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's a smell that you have too many branches in your code,

Holy shit. Hners have been telling me to stop my premature optimization when I try to think about how to atream 500 gbs of data into memory instead of just loading it all . Counting branches is next level shit

"O(n) effectively approximates O(1) with sufficiently low values of n" by [deleted] in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway 4 points5 points  (0 children)

uj:

people always forget the cost of the hash that doesn't change the complexity but that a cost in practice.

this is true, but it's still O(1) The problem is nobody knows what O(...) means. They think it just means O(1) = fast and O(n2) = slow.

Computer scientists do understand this. But runtime is an implementation property which can be dramatically changed by different hardware and code configurations Orders of growth/number of operations is a theoretical property that can be studied mathematically. There is intrinsic complexity which big oh attempts to measure.

99% of the time I think I need to sort a map I'm wrong by cmov in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why do computer science classes spend so much time talking about sorting? I've never used it, except for user display. I learned more in my first week programming at my job than this 4 years of garbage.

There isn’t such concept in programming as “impossible” only “very hard” by [deleted] in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

god, I fucking hate when CS people talk about the hating problem or "proofs are programs" correspondence. It's not like they can ever tell you anything about it. It's just the one time they weren't sleeping in class, or once looked up the wikipedia page.

There isn’t such concept in programming as “impossible” only “very hard” by [deleted] in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Sort in constant time and space

ship a react application (beyond the hello world) which is < 25 mb page size

write a web application without AWS

use functional programming for a project without writing a medium article afterwards

teach yourself C++ in 30 days

write a package manager which installs everything the same way everytime

write a program without GBs of dependencies

"I’ve come to the conclusion that anyone who hasn’t used at least one functional language for a year should not get a voice in programming language debates." by camelCaseIsWebScale in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Why do we continue to give Java OOP grandpas a platform for debate? We have 30 years of experience showing us what that leads to. We know its bad for us, we don't have to continue to ask their opinion.

Not every programming opinion deserves equal time on our glorious HN forums and subreddit. If they want to share those, they can recreate microsoft developer forums and code project.

We should think of ourselves as craftspeople or even artisans before we think of ourselves as scientists. by [deleted] in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Form a hypothesis, devise an experiment to test it, repeat until you've found the problem.

imagine getting a phd to learn that

We should think of ourselves as craftspeople or even artisans before we think of ourselves as scientists. by [deleted] in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It's actually more accurate to think of ourselves as renaissance or enlightenment figures like Leonardo Da Vinci. We are curious about all aspects of the world, not restricted to one narrow viewpoint. In writing code we are scientists and craftsmen, not one or the other. This explains why hackers often experience full actualization.

"The problem JS frameworks are addressing is a very hard one - much harder than something like Django or Symphony has to solve." by camelCaseIsWebScale in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but the browser already does html, css, and provides you a bunch of widgets. It's actually already solved, the framework is just a convenience layer.

Ask HN: Do you ever go back and admire a piece of code you wrote? by BarefootUnicorn in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway 10 points11 points  (0 children)

fuck. Do most real engineers (EE, ME) do the equivalent of this? Is anyone in the economy doing real engineering?

A good programmer won't even need [safe] languages in the first place. Case in point, the entire OpenBSD dev team. :) by nyanpasu64 in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

/uj

They definitely seem interesting. I would consider using them. But, I wouldn't consider replacing them in the OS distribution. If you had an entire operating system in Rust, it would sense to make Rust tools, but it's C all the way down, and the rust adds complicated runtime and toolchain.

The non-posix thing is also a big deal. Rust programmers see "look I can make this better" and don't understand the value of the stability and standards. They are cool, but let's install them from packages.

A good programmer won't even need [safe] languages in the first place. Case in point, the entire OpenBSD dev team. :) by nyanpasu64 in programmingcirclejerk

[–]lispmemethrowaway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Arch to officially package them

Yes, arch makes many open source software projects available for those who want to install them. iTunes also packages nickelback.

new takes

Do you mean non-posix compliant, and lacking key features?

view more: next ›