Nope, it still doesn't work for me, personally.
Nope, it still doesn't work for me, personally. I never played "You Don't Know Jack", and so I tend to interpret your title literally. And your title implies that no matter how much somebody knows about JavaScript, it's not enough. Two decades ago, I was really into learning all the disgusting corners of badly-designed programming languages. I got really excited about C++ implicit conversions and clever template hacks. But that always proved to be a mistake, because nobody wants to read or maintain any of that crap. These days, I try to focus on the essentials of a language: What works well and portably? What offers unique expressive capabilities that I haven't seen before? What's idiomatic? If I learn any nasty corner-cases, I only do it solve a specific problem, or to avoid pitfalls. I really can't get excited about the implicit conversion semantics of JavaScript's "==" operator or the weirder points of how "this" get bound in callbacks. It's all just pointless technical arcana. If something neither expands my brain nor solves an immediate commercial problem, I'm happy ignoring it until it becomes obsolete. And my clients are usually a lot happier, too. (That said, the actual books are nicely written. But you asked about the titles.)
Posted by ekidd on Feb 16, 2015, 3:27 PM
Tags
Related issues
- I mean that's the problem though.
- I've always believed the opposite: get conditionals deep in your code so that the higher level control flow is regular.
- The biggest problem with AI isn't being able to do things.
- I am a 3D printing maker type nerd (I make my own tools for other creative tasks, rather than as their own outcomes) and I saw an incredi...
- Of course not, those are clearly scams.
- Claude makes more detailed plans that seem better if you just skim them, but when analyzed, has a lot of errors, usually.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.8,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (EdTech)
I mean that's the problem though.
I've always believed the opposite: get conditionals deep in your code so that the higher level control flow is regular.
The biggest problem with AI isn't being able to do things.
I am a 3D printing maker type nerd (I make my own tools for other creative tasks, rather than as their own outcomes) and I saw an incredi...
Of course not, those are clearly scams.
Claude makes more detailed plans that seem better if you just skim them, but when analyzed, has a lot of errors, usually.
Effectively everyone is building the same tools with zero quantitative benchmarks or evidence behind the why / ideas … this entire s...
> creating and operating a small company in Germany is a nightmare To be fair, I think the problem operating in Germany is its federated...
Nope, it still doesn't work for me, personally.
Nope, it still doesn't work for me, personally. I never played "You Don't Know Jack", and so I tend to interpret your title literally. And your title implies that no matter how much somebody knows about JavaScript, it's not enough. Two decades ago, I was really into learning all the disgusting corners of badly-designed programming languages. I got really excited about C++ implicit conversions and clever template hacks. But that always proved to be a mistake, because nobody wants to read or maintain any of that crap. These days, I try to focus on the essentials of a language: What works well and portably? What offers unique expressive capabilities that I haven't seen before? What's idiomatic? If I learn any nasty corner-cases, I only do it solve a specific problem, or to avoid pitfalls. I really can't get excited about the implicit conversion semantics of JavaScript's "==" operator or the weirder points of how "this" get bound in callbacks. It's all just pointless technical arcana. If something neither expands my brain nor solves an immediate commercial problem, I'm happy ignoring it until it becomes obsolete. And my clients are usually a lot happier, too. (That said, the actual books are nicely written. But you asked about the titles.)
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.