Hacker News Reader

Comment by tudorgirba | Hacker News Reader

Thanks for taking the time to provide this detailed feedback!

I agree that the message is not yet clear for most. We can see it in these threads quite well. Now, this is not the first one we are trying, and we will continue to try further :).

The sentence you provide is certainly interesting because it is relatable. The problem is that it talks about a fraction of what we want to convey.

At this point in time, as we do not know how to convey the idea succinctly, we are looking for people that will take the time to look at the more elaborate explanations. It turns out that there exist such people. It seems to me that you might be inclined to look at it, too.

Please do let me know if you do. I would offer to show you around. And who knows, perhaps you can contribute a better presentation for what this is. What do you think?

View on HN

> The problem is that it talks about a fraction of what we want to convey.

That's ok! Hint at it and let people discover it instead of trying to force them from the get-go. Utilize progressive complexity; start simple, from first principles, and add complexity in bite-sized chunks. Show, don't tell.

No one wants to have to learn an entire philosophy before they can start using a tool.

For inspiration perhaps review how other very deep programs represent themselves for example orgmode.org. One caution there is that orgmode itself is famously obtuse for beginners.

Lastly, it is a bold statement to say something like "we have discovered a new development methodology, and have designed this toolkit around that philosophy".

Such a statement requires a ton of evidence that such a methodology is useful, and currently there simply is not enough.

Thanks for the suggestion.

orgmode is certainly interesting, but again, its goal is a (small) subset of what is achievable with GT :). And as you say, even that is hard for beginners.

> Lastly, it is a bold statement to say something like "we have discovered a new development methodology, and have designed this toolkit around that philosophy". Such a statement requires a ton of evidence that such a methodology is useful, and currently there simply is not enough.

I am well aware of what that statement says. I did not utter it in the first 10 years of this journey. But by now, I do believe we do have the evidence, and a good deal of it is even available publicly and freely. Of course, there is still this little issue of people actually taking the time to evaluate that evidence. If people are not going to look at the evidence, it's never going to be enough. And that's just fine because eventually, some people will look at it :).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com