Tag Archives: heart

Two Questions

Posted by David Brady on July 27, 2011 3 comments
No Gravatar

Recently I was talking with a friend about coaching and specifically the act of helping younger developers improve themselves. I had a sort of microepiphany when I realized that I’ve been improving myself for over two decades with the same pair of questions, originally unconsciously and only recently in my active consciousness. The next time you do something you want to get better at, ask yourself these two questions:

What about this makes me feel good? This is a VERY specific question, and it is NOT “what do I like about this?”. It’s often hard to answer. You are not allowed to say “I don’t know”, and you are not allowed to settle for answering the much easier question “what about this do I like?”—although that can be a great guide into discovering what it is that makes you feel good. If you wrote an elegant passage of code, or did something clever, or shipped a really nasty hack but saved the company (thus buying them time to refactor your nasty hack) by shipping on time, that’s what you like. But go beyond this. What about that makes you feel good? Did it make you feel smart? Did it make you feel artistic? Did it make you feel like a hero? Did it make you feel like somehow, against all the odds, you might just be starting to “get it” as a programmer?

Take a moment and really just let yourself feel good about what you did. If you can find that and tap into it, you have just found a well inside yourself that you will return to again and again in the future. Congratulations, you’ve just found the reason you’re going to spend the rest of your life getting better at this.

If you can’t answer this question, don’t sweat it. But don’t be surprised if your life ends up going a different direction. Find something else that makes you feel good, and do that instead.

What about this could I do better? Most days, you’ll think of something right off. There was some duplication, or a lack of symmetry in the code, or your variable names were kind of awkward.

Other days it’s a bit harder. “Writing this bit felt a bit grindy, like I was pushing out lots of boilerplate. I don’t see how to fix it, but does it really have to hurt this much?”

The best days are the days when you try and try and just can’t answer it. Important: this doesn’t mean you did something perfect. Far from it, and far better: it means you’ve actually managed to see your blind spot. “This”, your brain is telling you, “this empty space, here… is where more knowledge will fit.” Those are the days that herald “getting it” on a whole new level.

So, them’s my questions for you. What made you feel good? What could do better?

Felt any good or done any better recently?

Twitterable Mandelbrot II: The Mandelbrottening

Posted by David Brady on April 22, 2010 5 comments
No Gravatar

Yesterday I posted my Twitterable Mandelbrot, a ruby script that generates the Mandelbrot Set in 134 characters. A few of you took this as a challenge to shorten my code even further. I didn’t mind, and in fact was interested to see your results; I was sure that an extra character here or there could be shaved off.

What I didn’t expect at all was that somebody would shave fourteen characters off.

Reader brahbur on rubyflow came up with this:

a couple of these changes could be considered “cheating” (-:

80.times{|a|p (0..300).map{|b|x=y=i=0;(x,y,i=x*x-y*y+b/150.0-1.5,2*x*y+a/40.0-1,i+1)until(x*x+y*y>4||i>98);i>98?0:1}*''}

Brahbur’s solution does look different; there are quote marks on each line and it outputs 1s and 0s instead of #s and .s, but the mandelbrot is still clearly visible (Edit: I reduced the size from 300×80 to 240×60 just to keep the outputs roughly the same size):


Click for larger version (1400×800)

I think this is just awesome. Once we’re playing with 0′s and 1′s, I can see another optimization: i>98?0:1 can be replaced with 99<=>i. This bring us down to 118:

60.times{|a|p (0..240).map{|b|x=y=i=0;(x,y,i=x*x-y*y+b/120.0-1.5,2*x*y+a/30.0-1,i+1)until(x*x+y*y>4||i>98);99<=>i}*''}

I have to give most of the credit to brahbur, though–I just saw a tiny tweak, on top of the amazing rewrite they already did. So great. THANK YOU brahbur!

Now, the challenge continues: can you shorten this further? Brahbur was concerned about “cheating”, so let’s define the rules for clarity: Output should be 240×60 (extra quotes and padding are okay) and it should be visually recognizable as a Mandelbrot set. Other than that, go for it.

Twitterable Mandelbrot

Posted by David Brady on April 21, 2010 15 comments
No Gravatar

As a kid I always thought fractals were neat, but every time I tried to learn how to do them, I got lost in the math. I guess 20 years makes all the difference: today I went and read up on the Mandelbrot set and had one of those “wait, that’s it?” moments.

It took me about 15 minutes to write the program. Here’s the output:


Click for larger version (1400×800)

The whole program was about 400 characters long. I got to thinking, “that’s *almost* small enough to fit into a single tweet…” and then I spent the next hour and a half refactoring my code for size.

Victory:


http://twitter.com/dbrady/status/12546255974

What do you mean I need a hobby? I have one. See?