Comment by CyberDildonics
5 years ago
> Do I really need to back up the claim that what applies to the rare talents doesn't automatically apply to everyone? That should be the default assumption unless proven otherwise.
You do actually, yes
This makes me think you are just ignoring what I'm actually saying. Read some of his source code like I mentioned multiple times and tell me this somehow only applies to John Carmack. There is no reason anyone couldn't program that way, but people have their head filled with nonsense and get distracted thinking they need unnecessary overhead. John Carmack's programs are incredibly simple and clear. Why would someone try to emulate this charlatan who doesn't make anything when they could mimic Carmack?
This isn't saying everyone can drive as fast as a race car driver, it's saying that you should at least go in the same direction if you want to get to the same place.
>Read some of his source code like I mentioned multiple times and tell me this somehow only applies to John Carmack.
I've read the Quake 3 Arena source code before. I wasn't impressed. In fact, it was what I would consider "bad code". Granted, his constraints were different so I don't judge him or his code for it. It turns out you cannot generalize from very specific scenarios with unique constraints, as I have been saying. I really don't see what general principles you think you can glean from the source code written by one unusually capable man in a mad rush to be the first to deliver a revolutionary gaming experience. The fact that you think you can is rather puzzling.
If you were so unimpressed, why do you think Carmack is in the 0.1% of programming skill?
> In fact, it was what I would consider "bad code".
lol, I don't think history agrees with you.
> The fact that you think you can is rather puzzling.
It shouldn't be puzzling since I gave you half a dozen examples of pitfalls that Carmack doesn't fall in to.
Let's reiterate: Carmack doesn't do any of the bob martin snake oil bullshit and he writes very simple, clear, direct programs that were used as foundations for multiple companies and reused over and over for decades after. He demonstrates what exceptional programming looks like through simplicity and ignoring nonsense silver bullets from charlatans.
You can keep saying how baffled and confused you are, but you haven't actually given any examples or anything concrete at all.
The biggest tell that Bob Martin isn't operating from direct experience and first principals is his 180 from object-oriented to functional programming. You don't get a dichotomy like that if you derived your opinions. The principals that functional programming is built on, what actually provides benefit to the program, would have gradually permeated the earlier teachings, they wouldn't just come out of nowhere and flip the entire ideology.
He's selling a product. He'll say what sounds convincing and he won't say things that are true but unpopular (or boring). I don't think it's deliberate but the end result is similar.
One point I do think is relevant though, is that smarter people and better programmers can cope with more complexity in one place. Carmack can probably cope with a lot more state/lines/whatever within a single function, whereas chunking everything up into a form digestible by 5-year-olds is sometimes necessary for your code to be approached by a junior. But the consequence of making dostoevsky digestible by children is that you either remove a significant amount of the content, or the book becomes hundreds of thousands of pages long. And it raises the obvious question, do you want your 747 designed by juniors?