[saltedmd5]

This is the crux of the problem with a lot of software engineering culture as it stands today - blog posts and talks frequently deliver abstract concepts that only really make sense to people who have already grasped/discovered those concepts.

The enlightened sit nodding along, while the unenlightened go away confused or misled. Positioned this way, half-understood ideas frequently do more harm than good.

TDD is a great example of this.

In this case, though, I think the article does a fairly good job - it highlights productive ways of thinking that will incite useful self-reflection ("Do I do this? Could I do it better?") rather than half-communicating ways of doing.

[noxToken]

> The enlightened sit nodding along, while the unenlightened go away confused or misled. Positioned this way, half-understood ideas frequently do more harm than good.

I think this puts a lot of things into perspective for me. There will be a blog post about some topic on HN, and it seems that everyone in the comments just gets it. Yet I'm over here like, "Yes. I know some of those words. Maybe I'll get the concept a bit more next year." Time passes. I'm still none the wiser.

Functional programming was one of those weird topics for me when I first started programming. It's pretty straight forward on the surface. Some X has to go in. Some Y has to comes out. If it didn't originate inside the function, then it does not get touched. Yeah but why? Who cares if I have a variable outside of the function scope that gets modified? Didn't I declare it globally specifically to have access to it anywhere? What's the point of all these stupid rules when languages give me the ability to do so much more? But all these people can't be wrong, can they?

So I shoehorned it in. I tried to make everything I wrote as functional as possible. I started creating convoluted, over-engineered garbage that was needlessly complex. Nothing felt right about it.

Then I actually tried it. I sat down with a somewhat pure language to learn functional concepts, and it clicked. I see why people extol the virtues of functional programming. Like you've noted, not understanding the reasons behind using functional programming can lead to a convoluted mish-mash of cleverness that doesn't belong.

[0xcde4c3db]

Another problem that I've noticed with FP especially (although I get the impression that OOP had this problem too when it was the new hotness, and I've seen hints of it happening with Rust) is that there seem to be a lot of novices who fall in love with the concept and start evangelizing it, convinced that This Changes Everything. But they can't back it up with a lot of practical experience, can't describe any caveats or limits to its scope, don't have useful knowledge of the practical pitfalls, and so on. So when you bring up something in your domain that seems like it would be difficult, they don't have the foundation to say "this is how you solve that kind of problem" or "yeah, that's still difficult". Instead they deflect or try to subsume it under some vague principle that doesn't actually address your concern.

[lgas]

This is a problem with people, and not at all specific to FP.

[luhn]

> ...deliver abstract concepts that only really make sense to people who have already grasped/discovered those concepts...TDD is a great example of this

Thank you! I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. There's an abundance of articles explaining how to "best" test, usually using an overly simplified example (I'm looking at you, `add(a, b)`). When you try to apply it in the real world, things break down because no one explains how to deal with the icky practical issues.

Despite all these resources online teaching you how to test, I feel that how to test well in real-world scenarios remains tribal knowledge.

[Kenji]

> The enlightened sit nodding along, while the unenlightened go away confused or misled.

It's the same with maths. It's even worse when the concepts are explained in a circular way. Go to wikipedia and search for a random mathematical concept. I guarantee you that most of the terms used in the explanation have wikipedia articles that link back to the concept you looked up in the first place! Frustrating beyond belief. You need to get a foot in the door and then it's easy, but before that it's hell.

[mbrock]

I think this is a fundamental problem of learning and teaching, especially via text.

It's also that most people who teach just don't have Feynman levels of understanding. Mostly we are all kind of groping in the dark, and we all participate in some kind of cargo cult.

I also think there's a deep problem with how people want to learn math, and other abstract concepts. Look at how frustrated many students get by notions like imaginary numbers, groups, and monads. These things provoke some serious anxiety and confusion because students want to understand what they "really are" in some clear and straightforward way, when really all they are is hard-won abstract definitions that have proven interesting or somehow useful.

In a way it's disappointing that math books need to have "exercises." Why can't they just explain in a comprehensible way? I guess it's because the topics of study are abstract relations that only sometimes have some analogy in the "real world" (of course, some mathematicians believe that the structures of mathematics are in some sense the most real of all)...

[Myrmornis]

> The enlightened sit nodding along, while the unenlightened go away confused or misled.

It's even worse (and quite common) when those who don't understand are the ones nodding along. Knowing when you really understand something, and when you don't, is such an important milestone for people to get to, and quite hard to teach.

[bbrock25]

> This is the crux of the problem with a lot of software engineering culture as it stands today - blog posts and talks frequently deliver abstract concepts that only really make sense to people who have already grasped/discovered those concepts.

I'd like to see a blog post on just that point. well said.

[taneq]

It wouldn't make sense to people who didn't already get it, though.