,
3 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
@hyperpape @jesterreborn I don't disagree with this approach in principle, but for this to work, I think you need something like you get in chess tactics puzzle books: a ton of problems that let you hone your intuition.
It seems difficult for a talk to provide this.
It seems difficult for a talk to provide this.
@hyperpape @jesterreborn IMO, another difference is that we have a decent idea of what works in chess and basically no idea about what works in programming.
(Again IMO,) this means a justification of the idea is required in a way that's not true in chess and this is almost never provided in talks.
(Again IMO,) this means a justification of the idea is required in a way that's not true in chess and this is almost never provided in talks.
@hyperpape @jesterreborn I mean, some kind of justification is usually provided, but rarely one I find compelling.
An example would be, types are pointless because you end up with function signatures like (float, float, float, ...) with 17 floats, which isn't helpful (actual example from a RH talk).
An example would be, types are pointless because you end up with function signatures like (float, float, float, ...) with 17 floats, which isn't helpful (actual example from a RH talk).
