写作与思考2016nytimes.com
想写出更好的代码，先去读伍尔夫
To write better code, read Virginia Woolf
导读
这篇文章主张读小说、文学能帮人写出更好的代码，并用“哲学专业的人更容易理解指针”等例子说明跨界思维的迁移价值。对写作者而言，它值得一读，因为它引出一个真问题：文学素养究竟怎样、以及在什么条件下才能真正转化为写作或编程能力，而不是靠事后附会的类比。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
用具体机制而非空洞联想来支撑类比：说“指针像柏拉图式命名”时要讲清为什么成立，否则读者只会觉得牵强。
- 02
把阅读转化为写作能力需要刻意练习，精通写作的唯一途径是写，别指望读文学能自动迁移。
- 03
从文学中学习要有所甄别——文学里也满是“反模式”，不能照单全收。
- 04
论证跨界价值时先承认成本与代价再谈收益，论点更可信、更不易被当成说教。
HN 评论精选
跨界学习的价值不等于值得为此付出高昂的专修成本，应把读文学当作补充而非替代。
我觉得《纽约时报》这类赞美博雅教育的文章漏掉了以下几点：没人否认学习历史、文学等的重要性。人们开始怀疑的是，花20万美元、四年时间只读博雅教育，是否真的值得，而不是主修计算机科学、同时选修文学或读书。这篇文章相当于告诉一个竞技游泳运动员去学微积分，因为描述流体动力学的纳维-斯托克斯方程需要微积分才能求解。真正值得回答的问题是：为什么优质的博雅教育仍然标价如此之高？尤其当它的经济回报如此之低时？
aub3bhat查看英文原文
I guess what NYTimes articles praising liberal arts education miss out on is following: No one is denying importance of learning history, literature, etc. What people have begun doubting is if its really worth to spend 200k$ & four years majoring in liberal arts alone, vs. Majoring in Computer Science while taking courses in / reading literature. This article is equivalent to telling a competitive swimmer, to study calculus since Navier-Stokes equations governing fluid dynamics (and thus water) require understanding of calculus to be solved. The question worth answering is why quality liberal arts education still has such a high price tag? Especially when the monetary returns are so poor?
跨界类比若停留在空洞联想就毫无说服力，但“文学有助于编程”的核心观点仍值得肯定。
作为一名博雅教育出身、如今做开发的人，这篇文章让我尴尬到极点。看到对艺术和科学的如此空洞的简化，实在令人难受。作者似乎从未真正看透“为什么某种编程方式更好”，全篇都是“这些就像音符，这个人像钢琴家，于是BINGO问题解决了”。但核心观点仍然成立。
quxbar查看英文原文
As a liberal arts major who is now a developer, this article makes me cringe incredibly hard. It's gut wrenching to see such vapid simplifications of both art and science. The author seems to have never really pierced the vale of WHY any particular coding approach was better, it's all 'so these were like musical notes and this person was a pianist so BINGO problem solved'. And yet the core idea is valid.
精通某项任务只能靠练这项任务本身，技能迁移常被夸大，跨界联想多为事后附会。
“我们的指针高手是个哲学专业的学生，对‘命名的东西只是某个看不见之物的临时替身’这一观念毫无困难。对柏拉图主义者来说，这是母乳。”我看不出这其中的联系。指针在概念上并不难，它只是内存中某个地址，但对某些人来说确实令人困惑、出了名地难处理。我怀疑交叉训练的有效性——即看似无关的学习能直接帮到某个领域。我认为精通任务X的唯一途径就是练习X。即便看似最简单的可迁移技能也被证明是独立的。我记得读到过一项研究，说很强的乒乓球选手在传统测试中反应并不比非选手快（找不到链接了）。我的个人轶事也支持：一个领域的智力或技能很少迁移到其他领域。我绝不会听一位杰出棋手的理财建议。我唯一愿意承认作者的一点是：新手往往不受传统方法束缚，可能想出新颖的解法。
bko查看英文原文
> Our pointer wizard was a philosophy major who had no trouble at all with the idea of a named “thing” being a transient stand-in for some other unseen Thing. For a Plato man, this was mother’s milk. I don't really see the connection. Pointers are not conceptually difficult, it's an address to a point in memory, but they are none-the-less confusing and notoriously difficult to work with for some. I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of cross-training, the idea that seemingly unrelated studies can help you directly in a given field. I believe the only way to become proficient in task X is by practicing task X. Even the simplest seemingly transferrable skills have been shown to be independent. I think I remember reading about a study that showed that very strong ping-pong players have no quicker reflexes than non-players in traditional tests (can't find the link). Personal antidotal evidence I found also supports that intelligence or skill in one field rarely transfers over to other fields. I would never take financial advice from a brilliant chess player. The one thing I will grant the author is that a novice, often unencumbered by traditional methods may come up with novel solutions to tasks.
不能把文学形式直接照搬进代码或写作，文学本身也充满“反模式”，要有选择地借鉴。
我曾尝试让弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫的影响来指导我编程。读完《海浪》后，我决定创造一种以并发为重点的 Brainfuck 低级方言，并用它来管理公司的客户。最终我意识到，你应当在《海浪》和你编程的方式之间保持审慎的心理区隔。文学里充满了反模式。
pierrec查看英文原文
I once attempted to let the influence of Virginia Woolf guide the way I programmed. After reading The Waves, I therefore decided to create a low-level dialect of Brainfuck with an emphasis on concurrency, a creation which I would use to manage my company's clients. Eventually I came to the realization that you should make a considerate mental separation between the Waves and the way you program. Literature is full of anti-patterns.
同类还值得读
不要想好再写，要写来思考
Don’t think to write, write to think
这篇短文主张不要把写作当成思考完成后的记录，而要把写作本身当作思考的工具：动笔的过程会逼出想不清楚的地方。
写作与思考2022 · 553 分 · 145 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写作即思考：学会自信地写作
Writing Is Thinking: Learning to Write with Confidence
这是一篇讲“写作即思考”的博客：作者认为写作不是把想好的东西誊写出来，而是借助写作本身把想法想清楚，因此写作者应当建立信心、敢于先写烂稿。
写作与思考2019 · 529 分 · 83 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何用写作来思考
How to think in writing
这篇文章讨论的是「用写作来思考」：作者认为写作不只是把想清楚的东西表达出来，更是想清楚本身的工具——文字落在纸上，你才有机会看见自己思路里的跳跃、含混和漏洞。
写作与思考2024 · 424 分 · 120 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写作，帮你逃离默认的人生设置
Write to Escape Your Default Setting
文章的核心主张就写在标题里：写作是帮你逃离「默认设置」的手段——日常的思维和表达都有惯性默认的默认模式，而落笔能逼你跳出来，重新看清自己到底在想什么、要说什么。
写作与思考2025 · 407 分 · 93 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写作就是思考
Writing is thinking
文章以“写作即思考”为题，讨论写作不只是把已有想法记录下来，而是帮助澄清、组织和推进思考的过程。
写作与思考2025 · 330 分 · 128 评4 条写作要点编辑精选