wes-exp

  (declaim (ftype (function (number string) number) add-string))
  (defun add-string (a b) ...)

I've noticed that the industry really prides itself on algorithms and this is commonly reflected in interviews.

However, it seems to me that merely discussing algorithms, however clever they might be, is actually an intuitive human activity not unlike the example of the parent verbalizing procedural instructions to their child. Therefore, I would argue that algorithm design, though clearly an intellectual challenge in its own right, does not target the essential part that makes programming hard and inaccessible to so many people. (Disclaimer: a high-level algorithm discussion is usually followed by whiteboard coding, which I'm ignoring in this critique as a separate kind of activity).

Do you agree with this claim that algorithm design is not actually the thing that makes programming so difficult for laypeople? Can you give your take on what does make programming hard or what students struggle with the most?

Can anyone explain how this statement makes any sense for a supposed libertarian at that time? Any way you look at it, the Soviet Union 1) suppressed freedom and 2) espoused militarism. I'm puzzled why it seems to get a free pass here.

Actually, OS X now has the beginnings of an iOS-like permission system for location services and access to your contacts.

Only become a programmer if you truly enjoy it.

If you're getting into programming solely because you think it's "on fire", you're going to have a bad time. It is always possible at any given moment for various reasons that VCs could collectively pull back on tech, or some major employers could downsize, and flood the market with excess talent. No one can predict this shit. There was a time post-bubble when many programmers could hardly give away their skills let alone make big bucks. Not long later there was a time when it was a foregone conclusion that all software development was going to India. Now here we are talking like "is this money wagon going to go to infinity?" and I say stop. Just stop. Do it because it suits you. Do it because you like the work. Please don't do it for "the money" which may or may not deliver for you, ever.

1) You don't outsource your core in business, so outsourcing tech is not appealing for tech startups, period.

2) Typically tech startups are more of a growth optimization problem than a cost optimization problem. Outsourcing to cheaper parts of the US, let alone overseas, usually doesn't increase the startup's growth potential.

Summary: crushes it.

Take a look at a modern SV company now: Apple. It creates lots of jobs in SV, but far more in China.

SV succeeds in spite of the costs, not because of them.

Indeed. It's sad that as engineers (who theoretically espouse logic, reason, and evidence) we still end up making so many decisions based on herd behavior.

The real problem of cleverness is when people are bored of being code monkeys and start inventing things that complexify their project without any legitimate justification. Like "a cron job and a two line shell script would do but why don't I design my own multi-tier scheduling cluster"

Buying the yacht is a little bit like digging useless holes, because it's basically a very costly form of recreation that doesn't do much for society. Ideally, money goes into things that both employ and have desirable second-order effects.

No one is saying that alcohol doesn't have negative effects on health. It's just that the positive effects of moderate consumption are stronger, enough so that overall mortality is reduced (at least according to the available scientific evidence, which I admit may not tell the whole story).

Maybe, but this works in reverse too. There is a bias towards assuming that behavior perceived as sinful must also be harmful. This manifests in bad science in any number of examples: meat consumption, fat consumption, and yes, alcohol consumption. The USDA food pyramid (1992 one) came out against sinful fats and guess what happened? A low-fat/high-carb craze that was completely ruinous to public health.

I would also like to point out that the very AHA page you linked to states "The incidence of heart disease in those who drink moderate amounts of alcohol (no more than two drinks per day for men or one drink per day for women) is lower than in nondrinkers." So there may be a potential benefit there that AHA acknowledges.

"The beneficial effects of alcohol are not only evident in cardiovascular disease, but also in reducing mortality from all causes."

http://www.medhelp.org/heart-disease/articles/Alcohol-Consum...

It is thought that these niche languages are more productive in the hands of an expert, but then, you need an expert, which is scary for the corporate bottom line. Hence the mass adoption of Java to keep workers interchangeable.

Thankfully a few companies have realized what Jane Street did: niche languages actually make hiring easier if you are looking for top talent, and of course, the productivity is better too.

Related: http://flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html

"The management world has tried to develop software engineering processes that allow people to be plugged into them like interchangeable components."