TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

STFUDD

69 点作者 nkabbara超过 14 年前

10 条评论

rarestblog超过 14 年前
I fail to understand these two parts:<p>"In STFUDD ... you don't write anything at first. " "STFU Driven Development ... its How quickly can we Shut the Fuck Up and write something?"<p>So, which is it - don't write or write quickly?<p>I also fail to understand this part:<p>"we're all full of shit. And that's why you test. That's why you write a README."<p>How exactly "tests" and "README" connected to "we're all full of shit"?
评论 #1689901 未加载
motocycle超过 14 年前
Sure, there are some productivity benefits of the "STFU and start writing something" part, but this post itself has a few contradicting points. If everything is wrong in some context, why should i care about writing README and tests first at all times? Say when starting a project using a new language, I don't bother writing tests because I know I'll probably revisit for a rewrite soon enough, and by then my tests will be better. It worked better for me this way. How did I know that? Hmm sometimes I stopped and asked myself what approach to take so I just STFU &#38; take the same approach later. Oops that violated STFUDD in the first place :)
VladRussian超过 14 年前
It is late night, and i'm trying to practice the SRHNDD ("Stop Reading HN and write something") so STFU and post something interesting.
endtime超过 14 年前
Nitpicking, but is this any sort of conventional syntax for defining a predicate? I've never seen it before, and I don't find it particularly intuitive...<p>&#62; ∃ {C(x) : x is a context}
评论 #1690684 未加载
DanielBMarkham超过 14 年前
How do I say this nicely? This seems like something written by a 20-year-old, somebody who has worked in academia, volunteer projects, or a startup. Or put another way, somebody from an environment where endless talk prevents work from happening.<p>In timebox-driven development, every so often you have to produce something of value. So while I've never said STFU to a team, everybody knows that discussion has to start and stop based on the reality of <i>doing something</i> (which the author seems to be big on) Or better yet, the discussion continues all along; the topics and depth of discussion changes as the team moves forward.<p>Here's a little tidbit: in a corporate situation, once a team starts working at any degree of efficiency at all, the real problem is getting the rest of the business to understand and agree on what the team is supposed to be getting paid for. Lots of work can go into "business alignment" -- getting people on the same page. Technology teams become business decision-support teams. It makes sense if you think about it. Most of the time the real reason something isn't fixed is because people never could agree on exactly what the problem is or how to fix it. To the unaware and impatient, this can certainly seem like "endless talking". In fact it can become "endless talking" -- or not -- depending on the people skills of the team members.<p>So yes, if I were working on a volunteer team in a startup situation -- a place where there is no immediate customer and both the problem and solution are unknown -- I'd say we have to start putting some code down and getting more of a basis to talk. But I'd never say STFU. I don't know if the author thinks he's being cute or not, but that's just asinine. He's writing an article that applies to 30% of all X, generalizing to the rest of the group, and making sweeping profanity-laced statements in an attempt to drive his point home.<p>Unfortunately, no matter how many times you say "fuck", how much predicate calculus you use, or how confident you are, you can still screw the pooch by not knowing wtf you're talking about.<p>I'm not going to get into the whole "context is king" part of this because there's too much to straighten out in this brief format. He's on to something, just draws the wrong conclusion.<p>This article would have worked better as an "sometimes I get really upset and want to say STFU and start coding!" instead of a "This is reality, get used to it".<p>If the author is reading, keep the good work coming! Just be careful with generalizations: you can get away with them when you're right for 85-95% of the cases, but in this case it doesn't work.
评论 #1690450 未加载
onan_barbarian超过 14 年前
Akin to 'grow a pair' programming.
anatoly超过 14 年前
See also the "shut up and calculate" interpretation of quantum mechanics.
评论 #1690097 未加载
harshpotatoes超过 14 年前
Please.... No more acronyms... I can't take any more...
wyclif超过 14 年前
"Conscious."
jpwagner超过 14 年前
Zed Shaw imitation fail