I think the post invites a question to all the HN responders:
What would it take for the computer [software] you are using to run at its full blazing potential?
The answer is - if every single piece of software was written while already knowing the true requirements, the scope of its use and re-use, and knowing the future bugs and security flaws that would appear, then it could be written one time and be BLAZING FAST.
Many parts would still be written in a 'Clean code' style for the necessary extensibility and testability, etc. But many others would be small and near optimal.
THEN on top of that, if the author or an equivalent talent came along and rewrote or supervised the optimization of the regular software, similar to how the article does, your system would be HYPER INSANE BLAZING FAST.
If we are proponents of OOP or Clean code, we need to acknowledge that fact. (i.e. My code may not be important but it all contributes to slowing down the computing world).
And if we think the Author is preaching gospel here, you should also acknowledge that because the future is so often unknown when we write code we often have no choice but to fill it with Clean code that can be easily changed later, and sometimes even 'Shit code' that we thought would never be used by anyone.
How about just Hacker News, expanded with some machine learning to determine the topics I would be interested in. My 'friends' or connections don't supply me with nearly enough of the posts and news items that catch my interest, whereas I trust HN to float up things of interest (and not pure trash), so can I just base my feed on your posts?
Maybe you could use all the HN links you comment on and upvote as signals, classify the links into categories, then surface new links from those categories in a "for you" personalized HN feed. You probably need more signals to make it work well, like how much time you spend looking at those links.
Great anecdote that, a real classic - previous experienced engineer couldn't get the cooperation and information he knew he needed to do it properly so barely started. Newer inexperienced engineer wasn't quite sure what was needed but built something to get several processes working and used that to convince everyone to provide the support to complete it.
Key point: quantify the shinyness of the turds, so that HR screen likes the look of the CV, and be prepared to talk about turd shinyness and why it would matter.
"Created a new CMS in python (Based on the old CMS) (With a team of 2 others and one guru who did the design but I wrote his code) resulting in 70% reduction in update times (after we ran it in a cluster with twice the resources but I never could understand clustering so guess it was my coding)" "And didn't have time to write tests, and that project was canned because it took too long actually"
I'm glad my asuss eee is gone now, but in 2011 it was a fabulous travel aid for exploring italy - keeping us out of icky internet cafes and keeping us entertained on the long slow (railpass compliant) rail journeys.
Netbooks became of course the small and underpowered laptop that many rely upon today.
They also perhaps provided some of the foundation for iPad's success - giving Apple a clear starting point from which to market a much nicer portable internet device.
Me too. I bought one for a trip around Europe in 2010 or so. I wanted something:
* small and light
* cheap enough that I wouldn't cry if it was lost or stolen in sketchy hostels
* capable of using the web and checking email
Since there wasn't an iPad back then, and the iPhone was an expensive theft target, the eee was a perfect fit. The fact that it ran Linux was also cool. A year or two later I bought a MacBook Air and used that for the same purpose (more expensive, but I wasn't staying in hostels much at that point).
I'm not sure if the author was a child at the time or what, but these obviously fit a niche.
You prompted me to think of fitness - as someone who has accumulated fitness I still feel like I am suffering a lot when I run, and I can take that suffering as a bit like winging it. The difference is I am suffering/winging it at a decent pace, I'm accustomed to what suffering/winging it feels like and know that I don't need to give up, I believe I can push on.
And indeed there is always more fitness that I need.
Running is not training. Running is a stimulus; training is the response of the body to the stimulus. You want to come up with an ideal set of stimuli to create an efficient training response.
Outside of a goal race, you shouldn't suffer when you run, especially 'a lot'. You are tearing down muscles and training energy systems that are inefficient.
Slow down. Walk. Fragment runs into multiple runs. Run doubles. You'll get faster, faster. Add volume at your new, sane pace and new, sane volume up to 40-60 miles/week.
Once you've achieved the slow end of 'adult fast', say sub-20m/40m/90m for 5k/10k/half, you can revisit suffering during training. You still probably shouldn't.
Of course if you want/like to suffer or can only run 4 times a week at peak heat during a Georgia summer then all of this is out the window.
Everything fell into place for me as a runner after I joined an adult running club whose coach used Jack Daniels "Running Formula" as the basis for setting each member's training intensities and durations. It largely removed the ability/willingness to suffer as a factor in reaching one's fitness potential.
It's complicated. What you suggest is true, but how you get to that point is different. The parent is also emphasizing high volume low intensity training which is part of many routines; high intensity interval training is another.
Often the strategy is to adopt both, until you gradually converge on some target (pace over distance). Where that target is is a different issue.
I'll add another relevant point that I think is attributable to Bradley Wiggins, but I can't find it now: [on time trials] You should always be asking yourself if you can keep going at this pace, and if the answer is anything other than "I don't know" you've already lost.
Only if you keep pushing speed. At a given speed, the fitter you get the better you feel at that speed.
Plus, fresh of the couch everything hurts. Some fit person's lungs might be burning, their legs might feel heavy, but the not-fit person has three different cramps, blisters, achy feet, shoulder pain, toe pain, neck pain, lung pain... that gets better fairly quickly with training.
I feel the whole "it never hurts less you just get faster" viewpoint is demoralizing & misleading, which doesn't help when people are struggling to stay fit.
I definitely will need a "Jump to the recipe" button for Twitter notes.
You've found an interesting topic and decided to use that to practice your medium-long form writing - but have you actually discovered anything unique worth discussing?
The answer is - if every single piece of software was written while already knowing the true requirements, the scope of its use and re-use, and knowing the future bugs and security flaws that would appear, then it could be written one time and be BLAZING FAST.
Many parts would still be written in a 'Clean code' style for the necessary extensibility and testability, etc. But many others would be small and near optimal.
THEN on top of that, if the author or an equivalent talent came along and rewrote or supervised the optimization of the regular software, similar to how the article does, your system would be HYPER INSANE BLAZING FAST.
If we are proponents of OOP or Clean code, we need to acknowledge that fact. (i.e. My code may not be important but it all contributes to slowing down the computing world). And if we think the Author is preaching gospel here, you should also acknowledge that because the future is so often unknown when we write code we often have no choice but to fill it with Clean code that can be easily changed later, and sometimes even 'Shit code' that we thought would never be used by anyone.