Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Song not found

javascript void;
Dennis Graft Lyrics


No lyrics text found for this track.

The lyrics can frequently be found in the comments below, by filtering for lyric videos or browsing the comments in the different videos below.
Most interesting comment from YouTube:

Peter Turner

I agree with Rob's general view on patterns. It's brief so he's probably got a lot more to add to that given time, but overall a pattern does indeed highlight a weakness in the language. If something can be so predictably designed/written often enough to have a name, then it should be inherent within the language.

The other (main) issue I personally have with patterns is that it gives the impression that there's a stock solution for every possible problem and all a coder needs to do is find the right pattern to apply. From my experience this is usually a result of education where being a good student in programming correlates with being able to regurgitate the most applicable pattern given an exam-type scenario.

Over the years in dev (and interviewing coders has been part of that), I've come to the conclusion that patterns remove what is actually the most important aspect of logic/coding - the "grey area" as I call it. A pattern offers the idea that every "real-world" scenario can be resolved by using a method which 100% resolves it and it's just about applying the right pattern. This makes patterns ideal for someone who can "fill in forms" as Rob elegantly puts it. Why doesn't Java/C just have "applyVisitorPattern(Object Visitor, List<Object> Guests)" etc if that is truly a generic solution?

The reality of course is this grey area. Hardly any code solution is 100% of one thing - it's probably 30% of business logic, 20% of database design, 20% of memory management, 20% of conscision, 15% of UX considerations, 25% of optimisation, 15% configuration etc And that doesn't add up to 100% which makes a lot of devs uncomfortable if their idea of coding is 100% code using a pattern.

In interviews I tend to ask why they want to be a coder, and if the answer is "because I love it" then they have the job. And so far, I've never heard one mention of patterns after 7 years of RnD.



All comments from YouTube:

PetarDambovaliev

I watched all Rob Pike talks because he is so god damn funny.
"What was wrong with the old integer 80?"

Rob Rohan

"They think that the way those languages make them think is the right way to think about software. I disagree." So true.

Daniel Smith

I like hearing the little bits of laughter coming through his mike even though he's completely deadpan the entire time.

tieigisi

Man this video made me feel like i just drank a glass of cool fresh water after a long walk through the scorching desert. Really well put. Industrial code is REALLY verbose... java does not help either. It seems more like a 3in1 instant coffee: Just pour some code in there, and it will turn into this beautiful cool new app. But we all know it's not exactly the real thing, like a good made arabica espresso.

Peter Turner

I agree with Rob's general view on patterns. It's brief so he's probably got a lot more to add to that given time, but overall a pattern does indeed highlight a weakness in the language. If something can be so predictably designed/written often enough to have a name, then it should be inherent within the language.

The other (main) issue I personally have with patterns is that it gives the impression that there's a stock solution for every possible problem and all a coder needs to do is find the right pattern to apply. From my experience this is usually a result of education where being a good student in programming correlates with being able to regurgitate the most applicable pattern given an exam-type scenario.

Over the years in dev (and interviewing coders has been part of that), I've come to the conclusion that patterns remove what is actually the most important aspect of logic/coding - the "grey area" as I call it. A pattern offers the idea that every "real-world" scenario can be resolved by using a method which 100% resolves it and it's just about applying the right pattern. This makes patterns ideal for someone who can "fill in forms" as Rob elegantly puts it. Why doesn't Java/C just have "applyVisitorPattern(Object Visitor, List<Object> Guests)" etc if that is truly a generic solution?

The reality of course is this grey area. Hardly any code solution is 100% of one thing - it's probably 30% of business logic, 20% of database design, 20% of memory management, 20% of conscision, 15% of UX considerations, 25% of optimisation, 15% configuration etc And that doesn't add up to 100% which makes a lot of devs uncomfortable if their idea of coding is 100% code using a pattern.

In interviews I tend to ask why they want to be a coder, and if the answer is "because I love it" then they have the job. And so far, I've never heard one mention of patterns after 7 years of RnD.

Andrew Thompson

+Peter Turner "The other (main) issue I personally have with patterns is that it gives the impression that there's a stock solution for every possible problem
and all a coder needs to do is find the right pattern to apply."

That is well said. I would add that most problems don't fit really well into any pre-made pattern.

msniemi

@yudlejoza LOL - Awesome =)

leimy2k

@rwese Google is using Go in production systems today. I've used it for prototyping some concurrent systems at work, as I'm not yet comfortable adopting it myself yet.

caesar bala

Watching 9 years after talk still make sense

Ariadne Engelbrecht

Holy moly, you are right! Wow, didn’t look at the year before 😄
However, it is also kind of sad, because would we have changed our developing ways, then I would have known his talk to be out of date, if that makes sense 🤔🙈

More Comments