The Grug Brained Developer (2022)
116 comments
·June 17, 2025butterlesstoast
Professor Carson if you're in the comments I just wanted to say from the bottom of my heart thank you for everything you've contributed. I didn't understand why we were learning HTMX in college and why you were so pumped about it, but many years later I now get it. HTML over the wire is everything.
I've seen your work in Hotwire in my role as a Staff Ruby on Rails Engineer. It's the coolest thing to see you pop up in Hacker News every now and then and also see you talking with the Hotwire devs in GitHub.
Thanks for being a light in the programming community. You're greatly respected and appreciated.
recursivedoubts
i'm not crying your crying
deadbabe
Wasn’t HTMX just a meme? I can’t really tell if it’s serious because of Poe’s Law.
recursivedoubts
htmx sucks:
someothherguyy
well, at least he is (you are?) consistent in this style of criticizing others' ideas with satirical sarcasm fueled prose focused on tearing down straw men.
deadbabe
So it is bad?
brushfoot
Solopreneur making use of it in my bootstrapped B2B SaaS business. Clients don't need or want anything flashy. There are islands of interactivity, and some HTMX sprinkled there has been a great fit.
deadbabe
Wish I had your clients, instead of ones that say a page needs more “pizazz!”
dgb23
I started using htmx relatively early on, because its a more elegant version of what I've been doing anyways for a series of projects.
It's very effective, simple and expressive to work this way, as long as you keep in mind that some client side rendering is fine.
There are a few bits I don't like about it, like defaulting to swap innerHTML instead of outerHTML, not swapping HTML when the status code isn't 200-299 by default and it has some features that I avoid, like inline JSON on buttons instead of just using forms.
Other than that, it's great. I can also recommend reading the book https://hypermedia.systems/.
VoodooJuJu
[dead]
anthomtb
So many gems in here but this one about microservices is my favorite:
grug wonder why big brain take hardest problem, factoring system correctly, and introduce network call too
default-kramer
I'm convinced that some people don't know any other way to break down a system into smaller parts. To these people, if it's not exposed as a API call it's just some opaque blob of code that cannot be understood or reused.
dkarl
That's what I've observed empirically over my last half-dozen jobs. Many developers treat decomposition and contract design between services seriously, and work until they get it right. I've seen very few developers who put the same effort into decomposing the modules of a monolith and designing the interfaces between them, and never enough in the same team to stop a monolith from turning into a highly coupled amorphous blob.
My grug brain conclusion: Grug see good microservice in many valley. Grug see grug tribe carry good microservice home and roast on spit. Grug taste good microservice, many time. Shaman tell of good monolith in vision. Grug also dream of good monolith. Maybe grug taste good monolith after die. Grug go hunt good microservice now.
demosthanos
> To these people, if it's not exposed as a API call it's just some opaque blob of code that cannot be understood or reused.
I think this is correct as an explanation for the phenomenon, but it's not just a false perception on their part: for a lot of organizations it is actually true that the only way to preserve boundaries between systems over the course of years is to stick the network in between. Without a network layer enforcing module boundaries code does, in fact, tend to morph into a big ball of mud.
I blame a few things for this:
1. Developers almost universally lack discipline.
2. Most programming languages are not designed to sufficiently account for #1.
It's not a coincidence that microservices became popular shortly after Node.js and Python became the dominant web backend languages. A strong static type system is generally necessary (but not sufficient) to create clear boundaries between modules, and both Python and JavaScript have historically been even worse than usual for dynamic languages when it comes to having a strong modularity story.
And while Python and JS have it worse than most, even most of our popular static languages are pretty lousy at giving developers the tools needed to clearly delineate module boundaries. Rust has a pretty decent starting point but it too could stand to be improved.
jiggawatts
I keep trying to explain this to tiny dev teams (1-2 people) that will cheerfully take a trivial web app with maybe five forms and split it up into “microservices” that share a database, an API Management layer, a queue for batch jobs to process “huge” volumes (megabytes) of data, an email notification system, an observablity platform (bespoke!) and then… and then… turn the trivial web forms into a SPA app because “that’s easier”.
Now I understand that “architecture” and “patterns” is a jobs program for useless developers. It’s this, or they’d be on the streets holding a sign saying “will write JavaScript for a sandwich”.
someothherguyy
> Now I understand that “architecture” and “patterns” is a jobs program for useless developers.
Yet, developers are always using patterns and are thinking about architecture.
Here you are doing so too, a pattern, "form submission" and an architecture, "request-response".
djeastm
>I keep trying to explain this to tiny dev teams
I'm curious what role you have where you're doing this repeatedly
jiggawatts
The customer is a government department formed by the merger of a bunch of only vaguely related agencies. They have “inherited” dozens of developers from these mergers, maybe over a hundred if you count the random foreign outsourcers. As you can imagine there’s no consistency or organisational structure because it wasn’t built up as a cohesive team from the beginning.
The agencies are similarly uncoordinated and will pick up their metaphorical credit card and just throw it at random small dev teams, internally, external, or a mix.
Those people will happily take the credit! The money just… disappears. It’s like a magic trick, or one of those street urchins that rips you off when you’re on holiday in some backwards part of the world like Paris.
I get brought in as “the cloud consultant” for a week or two at the end to deploy the latest ball of mud with live wires sticking out of it to production.
This invariably becomes an argument because the ball of mud the street urchins have sold to the customer is not fit for… anything… certainly not for handling PII or money, but they spent the budget and the status reports were all green ticks for years.
Fundamentally, the issue is that they're "going into the cloud" with platform as a service, IaC, and everything, but at some level they don't fully grok what that means and the type of oversight required to make that work at a reasonable cost.
"But the nice sales person from Microsoft assured me the cloud is cheaper!"
mattmanser
It's all they've seen. They don't get why they're doing it, because they're junior devs masquerading as architects. There's so many 'senior' or 'architect' level devs in our industry who are utterly useless.
One app I got brought in late on the architect had done some complicated mediator pattern for saving data with a micro service architecture. They'd also semi-implemented DDD.
It was a ten page form. Literally that was what it was supposed to replace. An existing paper, 10 page, form. One of those "domains" was a list of the 1,000 schools in the country. That needed to be updated once a year.
A government spent millions on this thing.
I could have done it on my todd in 3 months. It just needed to use simple forms, with some simple client side logic for hiding sections, and save the data with an ORM.
The funniest bit was when I said that it couldn't handle the load because the architecture had obvious bottlenecks. The load was known and fairly trivial (100k form submissions in one month).
The architect claimed that it wasn't possible as the architecture was all checked and approved by one of the big 5.
So I brought the test server down during the call by making 10 requests at once.
jiggawatts
> So I brought the test server down during the call by making 10 requests at once.
Back in the very early 2000s I got sent to "tune IIS performance" at a 100-developer ISV working on a huge government project.
They showed me that pressing the form submit button on just two PCs at once had "bad performance".
No, not it didn't. One was fast[1], the other took 60 seconds almost exactly. "That's a timeout on a lock or something similar", I told them.
They then showed me their 16-socket database server that must have cost them millions and with a straight face asked me if I thought that they needed to upgrade it to get more capacity. Upgrade to what!? That was the biggest machine I have ever seen! I've never in the quarter century since then seen anything that size with my own two eyes. I don't believe bigger Wintel boxes have ever been made.
I then asked their database developers how they're doing transactions and whether they're using stored procedures or not.
One "senior" database developer asked me what a stored procedure is.
The other "senior" database developer asked me what a transaction is.
"Oh boy..."
[1] Well no, not really, it took about a second, which was long enough for a human button press to to "overlap" the two transactions in time. That was a whole other horror story of ODBC connection pooling left off and one-second sleeps in loops to "fix" concurrency issues.
arturocamembert
> given choice between complexity or one on one against t-rex, grug take t-rex: at least grug see t-rex
I think about this line at least once a week
EstanislaoStan
"...even as he fell, Leyster realized that he was still carrying the shovel. In his confusion, he’d forgotten to drop the thing. So, desperately, he swung it around with all his strength at the juvenile’s legs.
Tyrannosaurs were built for speed. Their leg bones were hollow, like a bird’s. If he could break a femur …
The shovel connected, but not solidly. It hit without breaking anything. But, still, it got tangled up in those powerful legs. With enormous force, it was wrenched out of his hands. Leyster was sent tumbling on the ground.
Somebody was screaming. Dazed, Leyster raised himself up on his arms to see Patrick, hysterically slamming the juvenile, over and over, with the butt of the shotgun. He didn’t seem to be having much effect. Scarface was clumsily trying to struggle to its feet. It seemed not so much angry as bewildered by what was happening to it.
Then, out of nowhere, Tamara was standing in front of the monster. She looked like a warrior goddess, all rage and purpose. Her spear was raised up high above Scarface, gripped tightly in both hands. Her knuckles were white.
With all her strength, she drove the spear down through the center of the tyrannosaur’s face. It spasmed, and died. Suddenly everything was very still."
boricj
grug obviously never took on invisible t-rex
this grug keeps one on one invisible t-rex, grug cursed
dgb23
One thing to appreciate is that this article comes from someone who can do the more sophisticated (complex) thing, but tries not to based on experience.
There is of course a time and place for sophistication, pushing for higher levels of abstraction and so on. But this grug philosophy is saying that there isn't any inherent value in doing this sort of thing and I think that is very sound advice.
Also I noticed AI assistance is more effective with consistent, mundane and data driven code. YMMV
ahartmetz
The time and place for sophistication and abstraction is when and where they make the code easier to understand without first needing a special course to explain why it's easier to understand. (It varies by situation which courses can be taken for granted.)
cortesoft
> Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler
poidos
This is, I think, my favorite essay about building software. The style is charming (I can see why some might not like it) and the content is always relevant.
dmurray
I can't believe this is (2022). I would have confidently told you I read this 10 years ago and guessed that it was already a classic then.
minkzilla
sad but true: learn "yes" then learn blame other grugs when fail, ideal career advice
magarnicle
I know, I get it, but I've realised that I'm not actually grug-brained. The way my brain works, I remember things pretty well; I like to get into the details of systems. So if more complexity in the code means the app can do more or a task is automated away I'll make the change and know I'll be able to remember how it works in the future.
This doesn't mean OP is bad advice, just make a conscious decision about what to do with complexity and understand the implications.
pixelatedindex
The knowing how it works in the future should really just be comments, right? And if it’s a bit more complex, perhaps a markdown file in a docs folder or stuffed in a README? When working with a large enough organization, tribal knowledge is an invisible t-rex
12_throw_away
This has by far the best discussion of the visitor pattern I've yet to come across.
dgb23
I don't work in typical OO codebases, so I wasn't aware of what the visitor pattern even is. But there's an _excellent_ book about building an interpreter (and vm) "crafting interpreters". It has a section where it uses the visitor pattern.
https://craftinginterpreters.com/representing-code.html#the-...
I remember reading through it and not understanding why it had to be this complicated and then just used a tagged union instead.
Maybe I'm too stupid for OO. But I think that's kind of the point of the grug article as well. Why burden ourselves with indirection and complexity when there's a more straight forward way?
recursivedoubts
I love crafting interpreters and mention it on grugbrain:
https://grugbrain.dev/#grug-on-parsing
but the visitor pattern is nearly always a bad idea IMO: you should just encode the operation in the tree if you control it or create a recursive function that manually dispatches on the argument type if you don't
Jtsummers
It's an engineering tradeoff.
https://prog2.de/book/sec-java-expr-problem.html - Not the writeup I was looking for but seems to cover it well.
> Why burden ourselves with indirection and complexity when there's a more straight forward way?
Because each way has its own tradeoffs that make it more or less difficult to use in particular circumstances.
https://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wadler/papers/expression/expr... - Wadler's description of the expression problem.
dgb23
Thank you for those links. The first one is especially clear.
However, this is just not something that I typically perceive as a problem. For example in the book that I mentioned above, I didn't feel the need to use it at all. I just added the fields or the functions that were required.
In the first link you provided, the OCaml code seems to use unions as well (I don't know the language). I assume OCaml checks for exhaustive matching, so it seems extremely straight forward to extend this code.
On the other hand I have absolutely no issues with a big switch case in a more simple language. I just had a look at the code I wrote quite a while ago and it looks fine.
12_throw_away
As far as I understand it, the limited circumstances when you absolutely need the visitor pattern are when you have type erasure, i.e., can't use a tagged union or its equivalent? In that case visitors are AIUI a very clever trick to use vtables or whatever to get back to your concrete types! but ... clever tricks make grug angry.
zem
even when you have tagged unions, visitors are a useful way to abstract a heterogenous tree traversal from code that processes specific nodes in the tree. e.g. if you have an ast with an `if` node and subnodes `condition`, `if_body`, and `else_body` you could either have the `if node == "if" then call f(subnode) for subnode in [node.condition, node.if_body, node.else_body]` and repeat that for every function `f` that walks the tree, or define a visitor that takes `f` as an argument and keep the knowledge of which subnodes every node has in a single place.
tayo42
What do you mean by tagged union? And how does it make the visitor pattern not needed?
ahartmetz
I care about naming, and I find the name of the visitor pattern infuriatingly bad. Very clubbable. I think I have never created one called "Visitor" in my life.
Given the syntax tree example from Wikipedia, I think I'd call it AstWalker, AstItem::dispatch(AstWalker) and AstWalker::process(AstItem) instead of Visitor, AstItem::accept(AstVisitor) and AstVisitor::visit(AstItem).
"The walker walks the AST, each items sends it to the next ones, and the walker processes them". That means something. "The visitor visits the AST items, which accept it" means basically nothing. It's more general, but also contains very little useful information. So the visitor might need different names in different situations. Fine. Just add a comment "visitor pattern" for recognizability.
I remember a situation where I needed to walk two object trees for a data comparison and import operation. I created an AbstractImporter that walked the two trees in lockstep in a guaranteed order and invoked virtual methods for each difference. It had a non-virtual doImport() for the ordered data walk, and doImport() called virtual methods like importUserAccount(), importUserAccountGrouMemberships() etc. There were two subclasses of AbstractImporter: ImportAnalyzer collected differences to display them, then there was a selection step implemented by a kind of list model + a bit of controller logic, then an ImportWorker to make the selected changes. All rather specific terminology and not exactly the visitor pattern.
tempaway43563
I went to look for that bit. It said:
"Bad"
lol
GMoromisato
One of the many ironies of modern software development is that we sometimes introduce complexity because we think it will "save time in the end". Sometimes we're right and it does save time--but not always and maybe not often.
Three examples:
DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) sometimes leads to premature abstraction. We think, "hey, I bet this pattern will get used elsewhere, so we need to abstract out the common parts of the pattern and then..." And that's when the Complexity Demon enters.
We want as many bugs as possible caught at compile-time. But that means the compiler needs to know more and more about what we're actually trying to do, so we come up with increasingly complex types which tax your ability to understand.
To avoid boilerplate we create complex macros or entire DSLs to reduce typing. Unfortunately, the Law of Leaky Abstractions means that when we actually need to know the underlying implementation, our head explodes.
Our challenge is that each of these examples is sometimes a good idea. But not always. Being able to decide when to introduce complexity to simplify things is, IMHO, the mark of a good software engineer.
dang
Related. Others?
The Grug Brained Developer (2022) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38076886 - Oct 2023 (192 comments)
The Grug Brained Developer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31840331 - June 2022 (374 comments)
“Good debugger worth weight in shiny rocks, in fact also more”
I’ve spent time at small startups and on “elite” big tech teams, and I’m usually the only one on my team using a debugger. Almost everyone in the real world (at least in web tech) seems to do print statement debugging. I have tried and failed to get others interested in using my workflow.
I generally agree that it’s the best way to start understanding a system. Breaking on an interesting line of code during a test run and studying the call stack that got me there is infinitely easier than trying to run the code forwards in my head.
Young grugs: learning this skill is a minor superpower. Take the time to get it working on your codebase, if you can.