HackerX

By year

2015

Ideas that Hacker News readers were still recommending in 2015.

6 posts cited57 citations

Counts show how many picks Hacker News readers cited in each year, not when the post was written.

@mxcl

Career

@mxcl

View on X
Recommended by 42 HN users
From the Hacker News threadleetcode seems to agree with your definition [0]. the meme isn't to say that inverting a binary tree is particularly difficult - anyone familiar with coding challenges and trees could trivially produce a solution. the meme is more pointing out how ludicrous it is that senior/staff/principal interviews can hinge on these types of problems, despite the engineer proving their proficiency by doing something like running DOOM in typescript types or writing homebrew [1]. [0] leetcode.com/problems/invert-binary-tre…... [1] x.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768@LiquixTypeScript types can run DOOM [video]2025
117

@ID_AA_Carmack

Hardware

@ID_AA_Carmack

View on X
Recommended by 5 HN users
From the Hacker News threadSome of that isn't the text editors fault. With the C64 the keystroke may be on the screen before it out of the USB stack on a modern computer. That is even before you start to consider the latency in the video stack. As John Carmack once noted: "I can send an IP packet to Europe faster than I can send a pixel to the screen. How f’d up is that?" -- twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/193480…@jandreseRegression with the C642021
13

@andy_matuschak

Programming

@andy_matuschak

View on X
Recommended by 4 HN users
From the Hacker News threadWell there's nothing absolutely 'wrong' with them. You can write good and bad apps with view controllers (I've done both). But they're an architectural blank slate, mainly offering access to UI objects & lifecycle callbacks. You need some architecture on top in anything but the most trivial app. The naive approach is to have 'no architecture', which actually is an architecture of just throwing masses of state, ad hoc, into the view controller, and using this to effect the UI any old how (so a 3rd party has no idea where to look to find out where things happen). Or you can go maximalist and select from MVC, MVP, etc, all of which are an improvement on the naive approach. It just so happens that I've found RN (React Native) to be the nicest improvement, to my taste. Simple unidirectional data flow & UI state being a simple function of app state make for a beautifully clean and unambiguous model for how everything fits together. One can argue the costs and benefits of app architectures all day, but there's really no substitute for trying them out, for the sake of curiosity & learning. All the devs I know who have written RN groan a bit when they're back in iOS and/or Android native development, and absolutely not because they love javascript! Check out Andy Matuschak's celebrated Tweet on RN (twitter.com/andy_matuschak/status/56051…). I point to it not as an argument from authority. But if one of the people who wrote UIKit thinks RN's model is the superior one, surely that should pique curiosity just a bit? > Are you suggesting React solves the programming language problem completely I'm not sure what you're getting at here. What 'programming language problem'? And why would an improvement have to solve something 'completely' to be of value?@crispinbTakeaways from KotlinConf 20172018
6

@worrydream

Internet

@worrydream

View on X
Recommended by 3 HN users
From the Hacker News thread«60% of my fav links from 10 yrs ago are 404. I wonder if Library of Congress expects 60% of their collection to go up in smoke every decade». And the discussion that follows about how to preserve not just the bits but also their meanings: twitter.com/worrydream/status/478087637…@FiceBret Victor Redesigns Classic Strogatz Paper (2011)2018
3

@ID_AA_Carmack

Programming

@ID_AA_Carmack

View on X
Shared by 1 HN user
From the Hacker News threadSame here, I never understood Java interfaces, abstract classes, and a ton of other "features" but picking up Clojure was a breeze. I don't understand why complicating thing that supposed to be simple helps you by any mean. On the top of that, I have seen several cases when Java programmers tipped over in their own code because of the complexity that they thought they understand, except there was a particular case when it was doing something else then expected. Reasoning about Clojure (LISP) code is always easy because if you follow best practices you have small functions with very little context to understand. On the top of these, I see the ratio of LOC 50:1 (worst case even higher) for Java : Clojure code that does the same thing. Usually people get triggered and say why does it matter, but in reality less code is better for everybody. Easier to understand, less chance of errors, etc. Correctness was long time lost for majority of Java developers, just put out a survey and you can see it for yourself. It is also pretty common practice not to handle exceptions well and just let a DNS not found error explode as an IOexception and good luck tracking down what caused it (literary happened to me). I understand that the average Java dev does not see any value in LISP (Clojure) but it silly to expect that the average of any group is going to lead the scientific advancement of any field including computer science. One tendency that you can see if you are walking around with open eyes that the people who spent significant time in developing procedural code in an imperative language understand the importance of functional language features and the power of LISP. One can pretend it does not matter see you in 5-10 years and see how much this changes. twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/577877… youtube.com/watch?v=8X69_42Mj-g youtube.com/watch?v=P76Vbsk_3J0@istvan__John Carmack working on Scheme as a VR scripting language2015
4

More

RSS feed

Keyboard shortcuts