I sure hope nobody is doing this with pacemakers or flight control software.

And why does this essay's type style change dozens of times? Who is that helping? It's like a cut and pasted ransom note.

I feel like this gets at something, but we’re not quite there yet at understanding the language to use:

“I shipped code I didn’t understand” Suggests to me that it didn’t follow the Vercel rule of:

“Would you be comfortable owning a production incident tied to this pull request?”

Why didn’t you understand it, it used a type of loop you have never used before? You read the interface but not the implementation? Or did it really in the end do work that was different from your intentions such that, you didn’t understand if your code met the requirements you set forth? How do you know you didn’t understand it? Did you read it and it was just French to you?

I suspect it’s probably something like b? You’re probably wouldn’t be proud of C (I mean maybe if you’re just a chaos agent) and it sounds like you’ve been coding long enough that it’s not A. But B has been true every time we included a library

This touches in some good points, but I continue to think in this world where everything has changed, more is the same than different, and part of our goals in the language we use is to ensure we emphasize we’re talking about what’s changed, not strictly speaking aim for accuracy.

Pride is a sin

[flagged]