News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Code boilerplate: Is it always bad? by themodelplumber on Saturday June 10, 2017 @01:58AM (#14526332)
This argument can be abstracted to subjective thinking vs. objective. In subjective thinking, every situation is unique and even the best objectively-validated boilerplate can increase risk by lowering flexibility, control, and responsibility for & deep knowledge of the situation.

Objective thinkers tend to go looking for existing, established boilerplate or frameworks because of the immediate leverage that is provided. They may think of too much subjective thought or originality as ridiculous NIH or wheel-reinvention. Their struggle is in the weighty task of grokking and maintaining third-party resources.

Scott Adams has kind of unwittingly uncovered this dichotomy with his own inventive, subjective thinking. He considers more objective thinkers as "word thinkers" or some name like that, because they go looking up the established names of things rather than understanding the things themselves.

Also Chris Langan similarly trashed Jeopardy contestants in a news interview, because they aren't subjective thinkers like he is; their minds are just filled with objective facts about various things. Well, true for him; his bias dictated the way he developed his own unique universal model--he prefers and has a gift for subjective thought.

Really though, we need both kinds of approaches.

Re:Code boilerplate: Is it always bad? by unabst on Saturday June 10, 2017 @03:13AM (#14526470)
Except, subjective thinking is what leads to objective facts. If not for thinkers, there would be nothing to share.

And words are amazing. All these complex and nuanced concepts we're talking about can be expressed and shared almost instantly because of the words we share. If we had to invent words as we communicated, or worse yet, had no words, there would be no discourse because the sun would go down before we got anywhere.

It is true that words are set in their definitions and intuitions, much in the way that scientific models are and common sense is. These can be considered objective facts.

But challenging these facts and inventing new words is just an important part of the process. Some have more success with it than others, but not looking up what is already known is just wasting your time. Same with not using words that already mean what you mean.

Subjective thought leads to objective facts with fact checking. Objective facts are then better shared, and better learned, because learning is far easier than arriving at them yourself. Learning just takes communication, which is proportional to the complexity of the information. Inventing or discovering new facts requires the entire lengthy and laborious process which is will inevitably include experiments and fact checking and evidence validation if we are to be scientific. If the problem can be solved with pure thought, chances are it was a philosophical one, although philosophy too highly relies on existing language.

Re:Code boilerplate: Is it always bad? by icebraining on Saturday June 10, 2017 @02:58AM (#14526434)
While I don't disagree with the distinction, I don't agree that it applies here.

The thing with code is that you can take those existing patterns and make them a first-class concept in your program. You're still in "objectively thinking" - still reusing existing code - just in a more compact and safe way.