Conversation

I have a different take on this reply: I kinda agree with it. One of the amazing things about types and purity is that stupid people like me can be more effective while programming, and that's fine unless you think programming is something only rare brilliant people should pursue

Quote Tweet

Dmitrii Kovanikov

@ChShersh

· Aug 3

Apparently, I've been using Haskell for the last 7 years because I'm mediocre and can't pay attention

Show this thread

Someone saying that excellent engineers are actually mediocre

read image description

ALT

Brendan Zabarauskas

@brendanzab

Replying to

@RosaCtrl

Yeah. My executive function issues often cause me to rush and not pay attention as well… which is just a human thing in general. I need tools to help me. Accessibility aids help everyone.

12:17 AM · Aug 4, 2022Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

It's also like saying we shouldn't design safety systems in planes, nuclear reactors, or industrial settings, because mistakes are just ‘engineers rushing and not paying attention’. These are common human failings and it’s important to design with that in mind.

Brendan Zabarauskas

@brendanzab

Aug 4

Anyway, not saying dynamic types aren't helpful and interesting in the right contexts. But I think for many of us the contexts where they might be applicable is more limited, given the amount of cognitive overhead we’re able to cope with.