> Then you've never been around the smartest people. Likely you've been around smarter then average people.
This is totally unfalsifiable. I claim that the smartest people around always wear clown shoes to work. If you disagree, it's simply because you haven't met any of the people I'm talking about. QED
So. I'm offering my anecdotal opinion. If you want to make it invalid because you can't falsify it so be it.
It's like proving the ground exists when you jump off the bed in the morning. The overly nerdy and stupid HNer can't even move an inch off the bed until the scientific method is employed in attempt to falsify whether the groun doesn't exist. OoooooOOh.
I'm just offering my anecdota opinion here. If you can't listen to normal conversation and you can only read research papers (which mind you suffers from a replication crisis) then more power to you.
Then say ugly. "Shitty" can be ambiguous as you see. Most people would classify buggy code as shitty code.
> Then you've never been around the smartest people. Likely you've been around smarter then average people.
This is essentially using your own belief as proof that your belief is correct. You say I haven't been around the smartest people because I say the smartest people don't do what you claim. You are saying "I'm right therefore you are wrong". Maybe you haven't been around the smartest people.
> Yeah and the smartest people structure the problem in their head in a way normal people can't easily understand. They can hold much more in their head so the structures can be complex.
Complex is easy. Simple is hard. And yes, some things are inherently more complex than others. But the goal is to hold the important things in your head. Offload as much as you can so you can focus on what matters.
> Isn't that my point? Formatting rules are a bunch of pointless minutiae to intelligent people. It doesn't assist them in readability because their intelligence allows them to parse even the shittiest code with complete ease. And I mean aesthetically shitty, not intrinsically shitty.
No. It's not the point you are making.
Also, look at to everything I said. Strict adherence to any one style is not a marker of intelligence. I explicitly said that strict adherence is essentially for people in a wide range of skills. But the best have preferences, but realize that they are more guidelines and readability matters more than the rules.
And the rules should be logical and essentially second nature. Like indenting is completely optional in most languages. But proper indenting allows you to better visualize the flow of the code. Nobody reads/writes minified JavaScript.
>This is essentially using your own belief as proof that your belief is correct. You say I haven't been around the smartest people because I say the smartest people don't do what you claim. You are saying "I'm right therefore you are wrong". Maybe you haven't been around the smartest people.
I have quantitative evidence of this. There IQs were above 150.
>Complex is easy. Simple is hard. And yes, some things are inherently more complex than others. But the goal is to hold the important things in your head. Offload as much as you can so you can focus on what matters.
complex is not easy. And simple is not necessarily always hard. The story is obviously more complex then this.
>No. It's not the point you are making.
It is. It was a rhetorical question.
I looked at everything you said. First off I never said anything about strict adeherence to a style. Smart people have there preferences.
>And the rules should be logical and essentially second nature. Like indenting is completely optional in most languages. But proper indenting allows you to better visualize the flow of the code. Nobody reads/writes minified JavaScript.
I've seen smart people who can do this. They don't even really care.
> Then you've never been around the smartest people. Likely you've been around smarter then average people.
This is totally unfalsifiable. I claim that the smartest people around always wear clown shoes to work. If you disagree, it's simply because you haven't met any of the people I'm talking about. QED
So. I'm offering my anecdotal opinion. If you want to make it invalid because you can't falsify it so be it.
It's like proving the ground exists when you jump off the bed in the morning. The overly nerdy and stupid HNer can't even move an inch off the bed until the scientific method is employed in attempt to falsify whether the groun doesn't exist. OoooooOOh.
I'm just offering my anecdota opinion here. If you can't listen to normal conversation and you can only read research papers (which mind you suffers from a replication crisis) then more power to you.
Then say ugly. "Shitty" can be ambiguous as you see. Most people would classify buggy code as shitty code.
> Then you've never been around the smartest people. Likely you've been around smarter then average people.
This is essentially using your own belief as proof that your belief is correct. You say I haven't been around the smartest people because I say the smartest people don't do what you claim. You are saying "I'm right therefore you are wrong". Maybe you haven't been around the smartest people.
> Yeah and the smartest people structure the problem in their head in a way normal people can't easily understand. They can hold much more in their head so the structures can be complex.
Complex is easy. Simple is hard. And yes, some things are inherently more complex than others. But the goal is to hold the important things in your head. Offload as much as you can so you can focus on what matters.
> Isn't that my point? Formatting rules are a bunch of pointless minutiae to intelligent people. It doesn't assist them in readability because their intelligence allows them to parse even the shittiest code with complete ease. And I mean aesthetically shitty, not intrinsically shitty.
No. It's not the point you are making.
Also, look at to everything I said. Strict adherence to any one style is not a marker of intelligence. I explicitly said that strict adherence is essentially for people in a wide range of skills. But the best have preferences, but realize that they are more guidelines and readability matters more than the rules.
And the rules should be logical and essentially second nature. Like indenting is completely optional in most languages. But proper indenting allows you to better visualize the flow of the code. Nobody reads/writes minified JavaScript.
>This is essentially using your own belief as proof that your belief is correct. You say I haven't been around the smartest people because I say the smartest people don't do what you claim. You are saying "I'm right therefore you are wrong". Maybe you haven't been around the smartest people.
I have quantitative evidence of this. There IQs were above 150.
>Complex is easy. Simple is hard. And yes, some things are inherently more complex than others. But the goal is to hold the important things in your head. Offload as much as you can so you can focus on what matters.
complex is not easy. And simple is not necessarily always hard. The story is obviously more complex then this.
>No. It's not the point you are making.
It is. It was a rhetorical question.
I looked at everything you said. First off I never said anything about strict adeherence to a style. Smart people have there preferences.
>And the rules should be logical and essentially second nature. Like indenting is completely optional in most languages. But proper indenting allows you to better visualize the flow of the code. Nobody reads/writes minified JavaScript.
I've seen smart people who can do this. They don't even really care.
[flagged]
5 replies →