<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Culture on Hillel Wayne</title>
    <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/tags/culture/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Culture on Hillel Wayne</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    
	<atom:link href="https://www.hillelwayne.com/tags/culture/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    
    
    <item>
      <title>The Great Theorem Prover Showdown</title>
      <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/theorem-prover-showdown/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/theorem-prover-showdown/</guid>
      <description>Functional programming and immutability are hot right now. On one hand, this is pretty great as there&amp;rsquo;s lots of nice things about functional programming. On the other hand, people get a little overzealous and start claiming that imperative code is unnatural or that purity is always preferable to mutation.
I think that the appropriate paradigm is heavily dependent on context, but a lot of people speak in universals. I keep hearing that it&amp;rsquo;s easier to analyze pure functional code than mutable imperative code.</description>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>What&#39;s the Right Tool for the Job?</title>
      <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/right-tool/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/right-tool/</guid>
      <description>&amp;ldquo;Use the right tool for the job&amp;rdquo; is a pretty tired cliche. Mostly it&amp;rsquo;s used to dismiss overengineering and one-size-fits-all solutions to problems, like using microservices for your 10-user app. It isn&amp;rsquo;t a bad saying, it&amp;rsquo;s just tautologically true. I don&amp;rsquo;t think anybody wants to use the wrong tool for the job, unless they&amp;rsquo;re trying to sabotage it. &amp;ldquo;Should I use the right tool for the job?&amp;rdquo; is a rhetorical question.</description>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>How Do We Trust Our Science Code?</title>
      <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/how-do-we-trust-science-code/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/how-do-we-trust-science-code/</guid>
      <description>In 2010 Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff published Growth in a Time of Debt. It&amp;rsquo;s arguably one of the most influential economics papers of the decade, convincing the IMF to push austerity measures in the European debt crisis. It was a very, very big deal.
In 2013 they shared their code with another team, who quickly found a bug. Once corrected, the results disappeared.
Greece took on austerity because of a software bug.</description>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>List of Articles about Programming Skepticism</title>
      <link>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/skepticism/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/skepticism/</guid>
      <description>There are a lot of curated lists out there about good programming resources. One thing they all have in common is that they&amp;rsquo;re focused on relatively mainstream ideas: good languages, good techniques, etc. I want to try something a little different and focus on the articles that are skeptical about what everybody believes in programming. To keep them &amp;ldquo;curated&amp;rdquo;, I tried to make sure that the articles were well-referenced or original research.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>