undefined | Better HN

0 points655mo ago0 comments

I disagree with the reading part, as that's a major component of learning.

Programming only clicked for me when I had a goal in mind and started reading documentation: change the color of the button when I click it. How to do something on click? How to change the color of an element? Etc. From there my goals became bigger and reading documentation and examples along the way got me to where I am today.

Video is the true deception. I was trying to design patterns for sewing recently, and as a novice I watched a few videos. And none of them ever stuck with me on how to design something myself. It was only when I read a book about pattern design that the concepts stuck. I think the friction of reading, parsing the info, and then acting on it is what allows learning to happen.

0 comments

rhetocj235mo ago

My point is reading does not provide substantial value, it provides barely any because you have to net out the opportunity cost of time spent reading. The gains are realised when you think and do something with the information consumed.

Therefore reading and watching are not the key to success.

65OP5mo ago

Perhaps we're considering reading with different perspectives. Reading a novel? Yeah sure. Reading documentation just to read it? Sure.

But it's essentially impossible to learn without information about a subject.

How do you suppose someone learn programming without reading documentation? Without reading code examples? This is active reading compared to passive reading, such as reading a novel.

theshrike795mo ago

Let's take two hypothetical people:

One reads all of the C++ spec from cover to cover. Remembers every single word of it, doesn't write a line of code.

One just starts fumbling around, writing code, reading just enough docs to get where they need to go.

Which one is the better programmer?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse