cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com |
Fri 2013-07-12 11:43 |
LOL. Yeah, very good list.
It's not ‘OK because we're going to do X’ unless you actually do X
Yeah. It seems like a special case of "Your argument is reasonable, but your premises are blatantly false. But I'm embarrassed to suggest you're that self-deluded" :)
there isn't a Law of Conservation of Blame
Yes, this, very much so. It's a perennial fallacy that blame must be exactly 100%, not 0% or >=200% or somewhere between.
the less often they guess wrong, the more painful it is when they do
Yeah, in retrospect I've often seen that, but didn't notice until you put it in those terms.
Write the hard part first
Hm. I think it depends how sure you are that the goal is the actual goal. I definitely agree in the case of your puzzle-game contributors "hi, I've done all the easy bits, can you finish off the impossible 10% for me" isn't helpful.
But there's many other cases where the hardest bit is impossible, but one of the other bits turns out to be amazingly useful anyway, and you don't achieve what you set out to do, but you succeed at something else.
Treating your programming language as a puzzle game is a sign that the language isn't powerful enough. ... even if the puzzles are quite fun!
I think it definitely needs the disclaimer, that it's not a problem with the puzzles, just that if you _always_ have to do that, it would be nice if the language took care of it for you.
I'm curious what your ideal language would be. I'm currently thinking I'd like something like Python but with optional static checking that can turn it into C when you need. But I'm not sure if that's sensible :) And I want people to still need C or C++ programmers so I still have a career, though I obviously can't base my predictions on what would be convenient for me :)
Simon's Law of Google
Hm. This seems like a hint that asking people "how would you google for X" is a necessary step before giving up? |
|