Seems like this was intended for adjacent article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45591149
Readit Newstype_enthusiast commented on Americans' love of billiards paved the way for synthetic plastics invention.si.edu/inventio... · Posted by u/geox
Realizing here that my typing skills are extremely limited by muscle-memory to things that I actually am likely to type.
It certainly makes a game like this more difficult, but I wonder if it's really a bad thing?
type_enthusiast commented on Overengineered Anchor Links thirty-five.com/overengin... · Posted by u/matser
One could ask: what's the UX purpose of the "active anchor" indicator on the side navigation?
One answer I can think of: if a reader is in the middle of a long section, and the heading is off the screen, it can remind them which section they're in relative to the others.
This indicates (to me, anyway) that it's not a function of which heading you've scrolled to; it's a function of which section is on screen. If you use section-screen-area or something similar to highlight the active section, fiddling with the heading positions becomes unnecessary.
If you have a tiny section at the end that can never take up the majority of the screen, then when the user is reading it, the active indicator won't really be useful anyway.
kinda off topic but since you're an expert here: what do people do with these uncut sheets? Is it mainly for collectors?
also, my favorite form of getting currency is $2 bills in a 100 stack (so $200) from the bank. I used to use these for gift money on holidays :) but unfortunately my credit union doesn't order new stacks anymore, just jumbled up old $2 bills now.
Steve Wozniak famously would get a bunch of $2 uncut sheets, and have them perforated and bound into a tear-off book. Then, he would dramatically produce the book and tear out a sheet of them to pay for things, as a sort of gag. I think it got him investigated by the Secret Service at one point.
type_enthusiast commented on A Knife Forged in Fire chicagomag.com/chicago-ma... · Posted by u/hentrep
I guess this is subjective. But to me, there's a distracting amount of purple prose.
Prose has a function, which is to tap into metaphor in order to help words describe a sensory experience that's otherwise difficult for words to capture.
The article does have that kind of prose. But it also has plenty of prose for prose's sake. Prose for prose's sake – especially in journalism – is self-serving. It obfuscates the point, for the sake of prose (and ultimately, for the author's own satisfaction with himself).
Edit: that being said, I liked the article overall and I think the author did great at choosing an interesting subject and pretty well at writing about it. I certainly couldn't do better.
I'm going to provide some examples of what I'm criticizing here – it will likely double my downvotes, but I want to be specific as long as I'm dissenting. This is just honest and well-meaning criticism, and I'd appreciate similar criticism about my own writing. I originally replied to a comment that said simply "that is some fine writing" and I don't necessarily agree. There majority of it is well-done, but to me, the early prose made it difficult to read further.
> some of the things in this sprawling realm of clutter might have come from another galaxy, like the ballistic cartridge for the table saw. If you accidentally touch the blade, it senses electrical conductivity and retracts. It’s gone so fast that it can’t cut you. It’s all part of the magic of this place of transformations.
This is just a SawStop, but the author describes it as evidence of the otherworldliness of the subject. Why? There's a bill to make this mandatory in table saws. It's not otherworldly.
> The room lit up to an intensity such that Sam was cast as a silhouetted troupe of antic spiders dancing on the walls and floor and ceiling, sparks flying around him like a cracked nest of hornets and in his hands a burning blue hole at the center of things.
The author is describing aspects of welding with mixed arthropod metaphors. To me, it comes off as pretentious more than descriptive.
On the other hand, I like how this paragraph starts out:
> Sam is afraid of some of his machines in the way that the lion tamer is afraid of his cats. You are confident. You know your skills. You have been doing this a long time. But you know that wild animals are always wild animals, and a false gesture, perhaps an unexpected noise, could set in motion events that could not be stopped.
This metaphor is effective to me and is descriptive in the way the author intends. Maybe gets unnecessary towards the end. But right afterwards:
> Sam is harnessing powers that few of us ever encounter in our lives. He’s directing them in order to reach down inside of this deck of tarot cards and transform the very atomic nature of its being. He’s doing what sorcerers do: magic.
What? This isn't even referring to a particular skill or act. Just the use of shop machines. I don't doubt that Sam is exceptionally skilled, but using "magic" to "transform the very atomic nature" of the metal – especially when we're not talking about a particular act which sets him apart – is a strain for my imagination.
In my opinion, in a journalistic writing, this kind of fluff distracts from the subject and makes it difficult to read and/or take seriously. That's just my opinion – but I was replying to an opinion that it's "fine writing." If there's room for one, there's room for the other.
type_enthusiast commented on A Knife Forged in Fire chicagomag.com/chicago-ma... · Posted by u/hentrep
That is some fine writing.
I guess this is subjective. But to me, there's a distracting amount of purple prose.
Prose has a function, which is to tap into metaphor in order to help words describe a sensory experience that's otherwise difficult for words to capture.
The article does have that kind of prose. But it also has plenty of prose for prose's sake. Prose for prose's sake – especially in journalism – is self-serving. It obfuscates the point, for the sake of prose (and ultimately, for the author's own satisfaction with himself).
Edit: that being said, I liked the article overall and I think the author did great at choosing an interesting subject and pretty well at writing about it. I certainly couldn't do better.
type_enthusiast commented on Is the 80 character line limit still relevant? (2008) richarddingwall.name/2008... · Posted by u/azefiel
I agree with you that writing readable and aesthetically pleasing code is more art than science (that can be expressed with deterministic rules), I still find some of the rules and rule-checkers beneficial (though I dislike strict formatters).
As such, 80 is as good a limit as any, and makes you think carefully about avoiding deep nesting of blocks, which is usually a good idea anyway. It also allows putting many windows side-by-side on a modern big 4k screen.
I have to push back here a little bit. It really depends.
I mainly use Scala, and I think the majority of Scala code would be far less readable if forced to 80 columns, than if it were a larger number (or simply unconstrained).
My WFH monitor is an Apple Thunderbolt Display, which is woefully out-of-date now. Even on this display, and even though I use a much larger font than most people (16pt Hasklig), and even with a generous project/navigation/etc sidebar, I still get 180 characters. The display I have in the office is even wider, but I can't measure it right now because I'm not there.
My point is, displays are now wide enough where arbitrary line limits don't make sense. Nobody is going to cram stuff into one line unnecessarily, so just leave it up to the local decision about what makes the code most readable. If for some reason a 240-character line is more readable in some situation, then we should talk about that situation rather than why they didn't break the lines.
type_enthusiast commented on Typesetting and printing a family memoir (2017) teamten.com/lawrence/proj... · Posted by u/cxr
I found "Java for Everything" really interesting, so thanks for posting it. It also seems it's been featured on HN many times[1], and the progression of comments (from 10 years ago to 4 years ago, to 1 year ago where nobody commented) feel like an archaeological strata that shows how things change and how they stay the same.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=java+for+everything (just searching for the URL doesn't work, because it started as http and changed to https 5 years ago)
FWIW, while I'm not sure I agree that JVM is the right solution for every problem, I agree with much of the author's sentiment from that time, which is: programs are written much less frequently than they are run, so surely developer keystrokes are laughably unimportant compared to runtime performance and other user-facing concerns.
type_enthusiast commented on Typesetting and printing a family memoir (2017) teamten.com/lawrence/proj... · Posted by u/cxr
The author of the piece here has something to say about that, too: write code top-down.
> There are two ways to architect a program and write code: top-down and bottom-up.¶ […] The correct way to architect and write a program is top-down. This is not a matter of taste or preference. Bottom-up design is fundamentally busted and you shouldn’t use it. Every system I’ve been involved in that used top-down succeeded and those that used bottom-up failed. [...]
> At every level there’s pressure to do bottom-up programming. Avoid it. Instead, start at the top, with `main()` or its equivalent, and write it as if you had all the parts already written. Get that to look right. Stub out or hard-code the parts until you can get it to compile and run. Then slowly move your way down, keeping everything as brutally simple as you can. Don’t write a line of code that isn’t solving a problem you have *right now*. Then you may have a chance of succeeding in writing a large, working, long-lived program.
<https://www.teamten.com/lawrence/programming/write-code-top-...>
See also: Java for Everything <https://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everythin...>
I found "Java for Everything" really interesting, so thanks for posting it. It also seems it's been featured on HN many times[1], and the progression of comments (from 10 years ago to 4 years ago, to 1 year ago where nobody commented) feel like an archaeological strata that shows how things change and how they stay the same.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?q=java+for+everything (just searching for the URL doesn't work, because it started as http and changed to https 5 years ago)
type_enthusiast commented on Is the 80 character line limit still relevant? (2008) richarddingwall.name/2008... · Posted by u/azefiel
I think the answer is pretty clearly "no, but" (or "yes, if"). Of course it depends on what you're doing – if you're writing shell scripts, it might make sense to keep them at 80 characters in case you have to go down to the data center and edit them from a terminal because your network card failed. But for most code, there's no particular limit that makes sense (in my opinion).
I'm somewhat against code formatting "rules" in general. If it's about readability (/aesthetics), different code will have different properties that make it readable or unreadable. Sometimes, forcing a line break makes code less readable. In other situations, it can have the opposite effect. IMHO, it's a local decision – and the human that's working on that code is better at deciding what's readable than a linter is.