*I really like this perspective, especially the idea that a “click” is often just a local maximum of understanding.
*
For me, the “click” I was describing wasn’t about reaching some final truth, but about switching mental models — moving from “what code do I write?” to “what problem am I actually modeling?”
I fully agree that JS is an industrial beast today, and that most of the real complexity lives far below the layer we interact with. In that sense, every click is provisional — it works until you peel one more layer and realize there’s another “well actually” underneath.
I see these moments less as an end point and more as permission to go deeper — or sometimes just to ask better questions at the same layer.
*I really like this perspective, especially the idea that a “click” is often just a local maximum of understanding.
*
For me, the “click” I was describing wasn’t about reaching some final truth, but about switching mental models — moving from “what code do I write?” to “what problem am I actually modeling?”
I fully agree that JS is an industrial beast today, and that most of the real complexity lives far below the layer we interact with. In that sense, every click is provisional — it works until you peel one more layer and realize there’s another “well actually” underneath.
I see these moments less as an end point and more as permission to go deeper — or sometimes just to ask better questions at the same layer.
Ok fair point. This, I can accept. Thank you!
But... I don't go down so easily: do part 2 of this :D
Fair point.
For me, the real “click” wasn’t about JavaScript itself,
but about learning how to reason about problems before touching code.
At the end of the day, I care less about the philosophy of the language
and more about using it to build things, make mistakes, and iterate.
Appreciate the perspective.
Nah, I literally meant: do that programming puzzle if you have some time, it is fun :D