Hacker News Reader

Comment by city41 | Hacker News Reader

I'm not criticizing you at all. You're of course free to write whatever you want. HN's tendency to upvote stuff from well known people just because they are well known is a little annoyance I have with the site.

View on HN

If that were the case for me then anything I would write would get upvoted in bulk, but that's just not been the case. I wrote it because I thought it might be useful to some people and presumably it has been for those who've upvoted it. On the other hand, those who have found it worthless have expressed so very strongly in this comment thread. So it goes.

I do think it is the case for certain high profile people (the mega super stars). Regardless, it's not important enough to warrant a drawn out debate here. Sorry to see you're getting such a binary reaction on this post. Like I said before, my concern with it is not aimed at you.

I do agree with bluehex: an example would definitely helped. It seems you have a new perspective on the topic, which is great but the current version sounds more mystic than informative. Here are one most confusing thought: Why are you bringing in people into the equation? Are these end-users? Or programmers? If they are end-users, why do they care what programming paradigm is used?

The idea about mixing OO and FP at different levels is a good one. Have had similar experience.

I specifically tied simulation and people together to mean simulated-people. I apologize that was not made clearer.

No need to apologize. How do you factor in relationships (between objects)? I feel that with the different kind of relationships between objects, the kind of operations would change, and therefore different paradigms would provide different strengths.

Thanks!

I still don't understand. If you're writing SimCity ("simulated-people") you should use OOP and if you're writing genealogy software ("data about people") you should use functional programming!? I assume I misunderstood what you meant because otherwise I have no idea how you arrived to that conclusion.

You're highlighting the immaturity of software construction.

Anecdote-Driven-Development will justify almost any approach, especially to vague problems.

> I'm not criticizing you at all.

Be aware that this seems very much like criticism, even if it wasn't directed at the author:

> ...seems to be the only way posts devoid of value push forward around here.

Yeah, "devoid of value" is a little harsh. I apologize for that. But it's not up to the blog author to ensure their post has enough value. In this context that's the job of HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com