Seriously, this is interesting but would have been much more useful if you actually understood much of anything about Buddhism.

Some high points:

- if someone tells you they have "achieved nirvana" that pretty much automatically means they haven't "achieved" nirvana. In particular, Jim Jones was no Buddhist, and pretty clearly had not been liberated from attachment.

- Buddhists don't actually think you achieve nirvana in this life. The ultimate nirvana, the parinirvana, happens when you die and are linerated from birth-and-death.

- No one teacher is authoritative. Hahn has written some excellent stuff. …

This is a very uninteresting post if it goes successfully.

Teaching has its rewards. I teach, oh, 15–20 hours a week at, teaching students from high school to grad school to adults who want to get started in computer science. One of my students just sent me a link to her first journal publication, one in which she is lead author, and said she “couldn’t have done it without me.” I don’t actually believe it, but who am I to argue?

Sadly, Medium and the National Library of Medicine won’t let me do a pretty link to the paper. Still, it’s “Relationship between altered knee kinematics and subchondral bone remodeling in a clinically translational model of ACL injury.” by my student McKenzie S White, Ross J Brancati, and Lindsey K Lepley.

Want to learn more about computer science? You can find me as a tutor.


Please stop saying “performant.” First of all, it doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means “functioning well or as expected” but it’s become a fad to use it as this article does, to say “how fast is it?”

The article itself has a decent point: JavaScript hashes, a/k/a objects, can look up a member, insert a member, or determine if something is a member in O(1) time (roughly, amortized and assuming few collisions) while Arrays are often O(n). But “performant” doesn’t mean any of that.

Say “how does it perform” or “what’s the performance” or even — horrors! — stick to simple English and say “How fast is it?”

Programming is easy; thinking is hard. There have been a number of programming articles recently talking about the “failure of object-oriented programming.” In general, these seem to come down to either:

— OOP is a failure because I do functional programming and its cooler; or,
— I tried OOP and my 100-line scripts are simpler written as top-to-bottom scripts.

So I was reading Jeffrey Bakker’s article:

He’s put his finger on something here. As Kipling said, “There are nine-and-sixty ways of constructing tribal lays, and every single one of them is right!” …

So the “read more” flag on my short pieces has magically gone away.

Medium’s short-form articles: good idea but the implementation is flawed.

I was put onto the idea by Thomas Smith’s article, and like it.

I’ve now written several of them. Every…

Coding interviews for senior programmers also suck. Good article by Adam Storm here:

I’ve been programming for money for 50 years and have probably written programs in 100 languages…

Charlie Martin

Creative software innovator, educator, architect, writer. Consultant. Mentor at

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store