More nerds need to get into philosophy. Specifically CS nerds. I think there’s a tendency, when you get into programming, to start seeing the world in terms of discrete, quantifiable units and categorical rules. It’s a helpful counterbalance to also study something that uses logic to deconstruct that kind of objective physicalist assumption.
Counterpoint, we get enough of that shit from people writing our design specs, and then give feedback like “it needs to pop more” or “this is good, but we need it to feel more modern”.
So, discrete, quantifiable things make for an easier deliverable, thanks.
There’s a quote that I’m having trouble sourcing, but it’s basically:
Code is for humans to read, and only incidentally for computers to execute.
I think a lot of things are like that, especially when it comes to defining and organizing work. It’s less about making the perfect requirements document and more about getting everyone to think about a shared goal in a similar way.
Specifics are great because they make for solid landmarks. But abstract language is essential too, because it clues you into how you ought to navigate the terrain in between those landmarks.
And there is always space in between the specifics. If you managed to nail down every last detail in your spec, congratulations on your new hand-compiled programming language.
This is why I like strongly opinionated frameworks! People get hung up on whether they agree with the opinions themselves, which is valid, but I think kinda misses the point. The great strength of opinionated frameworks is the speed with which you can get “everyone to think about a shared goal in a similar way”, to use your phrasing. They do have their problems of course and if you ask me in 5 years, maybe I feel the opposite way about it.
More nerds need to get into philosophy. Specifically CS nerds. I think there’s a tendency, when you get into programming, to start seeing the world in terms of discrete, quantifiable units and categorical rules. It’s a helpful counterbalance to also study something that uses logic to deconstruct that kind of objective physicalist assumption.
Counterpoint, we get enough of that shit from people writing our design specs, and then give feedback like “it needs to pop more” or “this is good, but we need it to feel more modern”.
So, discrete, quantifiable things make for an easier deliverable, thanks.
There’s a quote that I’m having trouble sourcing, but it’s basically:
Code is for humans to read, and only incidentally for computers to execute.
I think a lot of things are like that, especially when it comes to defining and organizing work. It’s less about making the perfect requirements document and more about getting everyone to think about a shared goal in a similar way.
Specifics are great because they make for solid landmarks. But abstract language is essential too, because it clues you into how you ought to navigate the terrain in between those landmarks.
And there is always space in between the specifics. If you managed to nail down every last detail in your spec, congratulations on your new hand-compiled programming language.
This is why I like strongly opinionated frameworks! People get hung up on whether they agree with the opinions themselves, which is valid, but I think kinda misses the point. The great strength of opinionated frameworks is the speed with which you can get “everyone to think about a shared goal in a similar way”, to use your phrasing. They do have their problems of course and if you ask me in 5 years, maybe I feel the opposite way about it.