I think the text should be combined into one sentence, which would be run-on but still give the impression that both images refer to one person, as it should be.
The first step to correction is understanding there is a problem in the first place. This is quite constructive, it may just not feel like it is because it’s framed combatively.
You’re doing it wrong is the phrase that lets teachers teach at one of the most basic levels.
The public is essentially a self teaching teacher, so this is just the process of public correction happening. It may look/feel like public shaming, and it may be if they’re going too far, but that is the mechanism that I think is playing out here.
Does that framing make it any more palatable to you or does it still seem unnecessarily disrespectful?
To me, constructive criticism means that the criticism doesn’t just point out failure, but that it then also shows how to correct that failure.
By itself, “you’re doing it wrong” is just destructive: it takes something apart, it destroys it. Without a subsequent “and here’s how you would do it right,” it doesn’t become constructive, it doesn’t help in putting things back together in the correct way.
Sure, as a first step, “you’re doing it wrong” is completely justified when something is actually wrong.
But without the second step - the constructive part - it just doesn’t constitute constructive criticism. By itself, it’s just criticism.
Ah I get that, like the frustration of a sociological paper pointing out a societal issue but offering no steps on how to solve it due to fixes being out of scope (utterly infuriating lol).
I still think the criticism is valid, but I do think I agree in that the criticism could be more constructive… But I still think laying the foundation of the argument, so to speak, is still constructive even though it may not go as far as one may need for it to cross the threshold back into polite…
I am still convinced this is a knee jerk feeling issue more than anything truly being amiss, but I have been wrong before. What do you think?
I agree it probably is a definitions thing, I’m very pedantic sometimes and it feels like my definition of constructive is much more optimistic/wider/encompassing than yours. That doesn’t mean that my definition is right or that your position is wrong though, that’s just what I think is going on here.
Rust: You declare the castle type as unsafe and then search for a crate with a rescue_princess function. You discover the princess you rescued is a femboy wolfkin named Pawws. You now have pubic lice and an inexplicable smug sense of superiority.
“Alright, but you better be outside of a properly locked up and OSHA-compliant castle with the princess by the time I get back, or I’m not compiling”
And then you do that, but you miss a smoldering ember from one of the castles torches, and everything including the horse and princess catches fire. Next time, pick an escape plan that only requires unsafe for the drawbridge.
There’s a totally safe way to do it too, I guess, but it involves building a series of replacement castles, and it’s also totally ugly and sinfully slow.
The go community is strongly opinionated in unique ways. For example, using libraries is generally frowned upon. You either use something included in the language itself (standard library) or copy/paste the code you wrote in another project. There’s also advocacy for shorter variable names which generally seems counter to the normal “write descriptive variable name” mantra.
All in all, I hope the ideas / opinions came from a good place and then some people took them as black & white rules. But they also come off as one or two people’s pet peeves who got to build a language around them.
C# is about right. LINQ was meant to make things easier, or at least the code easier to read. Instead, you gain this addiction to seeing how much functional logic you can fit into one line of code (or a single multi-line query) while still remaining readable.
No perl either. Much like python you find a relevant library (in cpan), but unlike python there will be seven different implementations, and any four perl devs will come up with at least ten solutions, nine of which will successfully rescue the princess
Everything will seem to be be going great, but to actually gain access to the castle you’ll have to compare your situation to successful rescues to find the undocumented drawbridge control
“In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you’re Dutch.”
Yup, Scheme was the only programming language taught in our comp-sci department so we could “learn how to learn.” Two years and a broken parentheses button later, and I switched to being a theatre major.
Today, my legal career stands as a testament to the pointlessness of a declared major.
programmer_humor
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.