| I think you're right, but I 100% reject this article. Maybe it is good advice for small- or middle-scale products, apps., etc., but it will never hold for a project whose goal is to make a global impact. I'm actually thinking about Fabrice Bellard, who was featured in a article that was met with success here two months ago[1]. > Bellard made it seem natural to pull together his mathematical insight, broad experience at instruction-level coding, and careful engineering to advance the field this way When you look at his achievements[2], I have trouble finding one that would have succeeded with OP's "advice". Between an app for coffee-lovers and QEMU, I think the careful thinking and engineering crushes the hype of "let's do it". Sure it sounds good, but that is not the way you will achieve something meaningful. I may sound like an ass while it is not my goal, but - I'm kind of surprised to see the success of this article (50 votes for 2 hours) given the low level and amount of content it offers - I distrust analogies, and this gamma-correction one is definitely unsound (not to say dumb) 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5187585 2: http://bellard.org/ |
I think both you and the parent got the wrong impression.
The article is not saying "just start coding -- and skip planning and engineering".
He says "just start working hard on the problem from day one, INCLUDING the planning and engineering parts -- instead of leaving it for later, or doing only low hanging fruits in the beginning".
"Start working hard early on != just start with coding immediately".
>- I distrust analogies, and this gamma-correction one is definitely unsound (not to say dumb)
Nothing unsound or dumb about it. It's just that he could reduce it to the curve shown --taken to mean project completion--, without mentioning gamma at all.
The curve is the important part of the analogy, not gamma.