Hacker News Reader

Comment by hoosieree | Hacker News Reader

This is why I enjoy both woodworking and code golfing. There's an inescapable objective success or failure indicator that no amount of posturing can overcome.

Either the code is short, or it isn't.

Either the chair supports your weight, or it breaks.

I think I enjoy these pursuits as an antidote to the kind of software I have to deal with on a daily basis - it's the kind that is so complex there are "no obvious deficiencies", so being able to retreat to domains where there are "obviously no deficiencies" is a treat.

View on HN

Yup. I've gravitated towards difficult domains in my career because they serve as a very effective filter on the people actually applying for them, they keep me sharp, and people that have needs in these areas tend to less of the stereotypical "idea people," that are looking to milk those who can execute.

Can you give any examples of those difficult domains?

I'm an ok-ish web developer, and would love to fine some niches to specialize in like you mentioned.

* Deep systems programming (this one is losing its "hard" luster a bit with Rust, which I'm okay with)

* Compilers/DSLs/language runtimes/static analysis

* Distributed systems (on my list of things to learn, know basically nothing)

* More generically: high-performance code, doesn't have to be fintech-fast, but designing and maintaining code that makes excellent use of hardware resources

While what you say is true, my experience at such jobs is they also tend to have the most dysfunctional people/teams, unfortunately. And career growth tends to be very stagnant, and working conditions are poor (the supply of labor exceeds the demand).

Switching to "dumb" jobs made my life a lot happier. While it's easier, the demand exceeds the supply. Easier career growth, and better colleagues (no egos, etc).

You still need to be picky about teams. Where I am currently pays decently, has interesting work, and is small enough that there is meaningful progression, and is low drama. (We're hiring, check my profile for email if you like some of the stuff I mentioned above!)

So, my one example disputes your claim. :)

> There's an inescapable objective success or failure indicator that no amount of posturing can overcome.

Because of this statement, I feel like I finally understand the aversion in the woodworking community to pocketholes and CNCs.

How so? If it's objective, and a CNC or pockethole based chair holds up, wouldn't it be accepted?

The point is that without pockethole jigs or CNC, certain "wood workers" couldn't build anything that actually held up.

Its not an aversion to the technique per se, its an aversion to the kind of person who uses them for everything.

>Either the chair supports your weight, or it breaks.

Well, it's very easy to make a chair that works a couple times. Whether it holds up for a week or a century is another matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com