

Getting to simple (2013) - oskarth
http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=766

======
vonklaus
There is a lot too learn. Part of the problem seems to be that docs are really
hard to parse for a lot of technologies (or possibly non-existant). Things
would be a lot "simpler" if, after the requisite core knowledge accrual, these
concepts could be quickly applied. However, when forced to learn/execute on a
granular level for some new concept/framework/library the docs make this
difficult.

It would be much more efficient for programmers if docs were more than an
afterthought. If you are making a new hotNewJavascriptFramework, first,
consider not doing it, second, please make your docs extremely easy to
understand and search.

------
Delmania
The easiest way to get to simple is through specialization. Rather than focus
on trying to learning it all, focus on a core competence, and build from
there. Having a computer science or software engineering degree is a great
first step, but I think people need to specialize, gain mastery in a single
topic, and then build from there.

------
michaelochurch
I've been learning Haskell for the past year. You wanna talk about a lot to
learn...

I still don't understand category theory, or Arrow aside from the two
canonical ones (functions and Kleisli). Monad transformers I would not call
myself fluent in. Even with those gaps in my knowledge, I'm still more
productive in Haskell than I would be in almost any other language. (Clojure
might be comparable, because macros are much more approachable than Template
Haskell.) I think we're reaching a point where complete knowledge of
_anything_ is impossible; we're just going to have to learn to be productive
with a "merely good: level of knowledge.

I would like to see a more condensed "common core" of computer science. I feel
like it'd take a 9- to 12-year educational program that'd have to be
concurrent with actually working as a programmer in some context. But in a
more ideal world, it would exist.

