Comment by corethree | Hacker News Reader

Comment by corethree | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Thus actual solve time and absolute difficulty are almost orthogonal.

No it just means luck is another factor. You have luck, intelligence and length of time. Time is correlated with possibility right? You can get lucky and guess the probability on the get go.

Either way you introduced a third possibility here which goes further to illustrate that this quotation is inaccurate and not intelligent.

>Again no, it was saying one limitation becomes significant in a specific situation. Often these bugs may not actually take long to fix, but you’ll suffer when dealing with them. Even strait forward off by one errors can be annoying when you have to reason about really tricky bits of code.

False. You are absolutely wrong. The statement was made without qualification to a specific situation. Therefore it is made in the context of the universal situation meaning absolutist. Sinking with the ship again.

>That feeling where you spend an hour staring at an IDE with absolutely no clue what’s going on sucks even if it doesn’t take that long to actually fix the issue.

So? This doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. The topic at hand is the quotation is wrong. How you feel during debugging is off topic.

> The statement was made without qualification to a specific situation.

The overall stamens includes an “if you” which is a qualifier. So you seemingly don’t understand what those words mean and objectively wrong here.

"If you" doesn't mean what you're implying it to mean, this is a deliberate twisting of the meaning by you. If you write code as cleverly as possible you can still solve a bug with a lot of time, with luck and/or with intelligence.

He is saying if you write code as cleverly as possible then in ALL situations it will be impossible to debug by you, which is false. The quote is not intelligent.

You know all of this you're just sinking with the ship and trying to manipulate the situation your way while throwing insults at me on my ability to understand language. Insults are a signature move by someone who has clearly lost the discussion and you've lost definitively.

I think we're both done here. After that insult there is no further need to continue the conversation. Please leave.

Nope, nobody writes every single line of code in a program as cleverly as possible attempting to do so generally means you don’t finish.

And no it’s not saying in ALL situations you can’t solve ANY bugs. You only finish debugging when you solve every bug not just 1 of them. Further sometimes you’re going to write a clever bit of code that doesn’t contain a bug and thus doesn’t need to be debugged.

So it’s saying writing buggy code is easier than correct code, so avoid writing clever code or some of it is going to stay buggy. That’s what the quote actually means.

PS: Also, that wasn’t an insult it’s a statement of fact. You’re trying to twist the statement as not being qualified but it’s got a qualifier.

>PS: Also, that wasn’t an insult it’s a statement of fact. You’re trying to twist the statement as not being qualified but it’s got a qualifier.

You're a liar. I clearly am typing english and reading your responses. You're typing to me in english so you know I understand it. What you said was therefore with 100% intent malice because it's simply not true. You are not a moral person. You're just an asshole and you know it. THIS statement can be claimed to be a fact, not yours, not even in the slightest.

I mean you know what happens when you call a stupid person "stupid" to his face and then say it's a fact? It's not an insult? Just a fact? You know this. No need to spell it out. You're an ass hole.

>Nope, nobody writes every single line of code in a program as cleverly as possible attempting to do so generally means you don’t finish.

You're just making stuff up at this point. A quotation made around a situation that can never occur according to you? You're just lying now.

>And no it’s not saying in ALL situations you can’t solve ANY bugs. You only finish debugging when you solve every bug not just 1 of them. Further sometimes you’re going to write a clever bit of code that doesn’t contain a bug and thus doesn’t need to be debugged.

No you're just adjusting the meaning to fit your agenda. You're going at a bit of of a stretch here. This conversation has descended into way to deep of pedantism thanks to your attempt to twist things in your favor.

>So it’s saying writing buggy code is easier than correct code, so avoid writing clever code or some of it is going to stay buggy. That’s what the quote actually means.

No. It's simplistic to say that clever code tends to be buggier. This guy took the extra step to say that clever code is "by definition" not debuggable. Again twisting the situation to fit your agenda.

Man you're done. You need to stop with the insults and stop with these pathetic attempts at explaining your point of view.

Sometimes the truth hurts, get over it.

Ignorance doesn’t mean stupidity it means you don’t understand something. It’s possible to gain understanding when you accept you’re wrong and try and learn, but lashing out means you will forever wallow in ignorance.

> generally means

“can never occur” this this is why you don’t understand. You need to actually read what was written not whatever nonsense comes into your head.

You only need to debug code that’s not correct. Therefore logically when talking about the effort to write code vs debug that code they don’t mean the effort to write correct code vs debut correct code. Instead it’s the effort to create incorrect code vs debut that incorrect code. Any other interpretation is nonsense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com