It would be kinder to assume that "I think about how to solve the problem" doesn't capture the nuances of actually doing that thinking to the satisfaction of the commenter, and this is their attempt to articulate it to match their experience. The process of "understand the starting point, the desired end point, and identify the path between them" closely matches the way I approach problems. If you don't feel inclined to meet someone where they're at, you can say so without condescension.
"understand the starting point, the desired end point, and identify the path between them"
That is the definition of problem-solving. If there was any nuance in the original comment, we both failed to find it.
Twisol's point that you failed to find is that you could choose to give AndrewKemendo the benefit of the doubt.
Clearly there is something novel about the way Dijistra thought and worked. Most of us don't do things that way - formulate our thinking, then work towards one perfect first draft.
AndrewKemendo saw that and said "I identify, I'm the same way", and tried to describe what his way of thinking sounds like.
If to you it sounds like the exact way of thinking and problem solving as yours or mine, well, then perhaps AndrewKemendo did not describe it well enough. Perhaps it's impossible to describe it to someone else. But the necessary context to his description is that his brain works different from yours or mine. So the short textual description also means something different than what it does for you and me.
Is there the possibility that AndrewKemendo is self-grandiose and not aware that he is not special and his verbose descriptions of his unique way of thinking are nothing but? Sure. But even if we had no other evidence that this is not the case, it would cost you nothing to be curious and assume best intention. But we do have other evidence - and it's in the first line - "There’s no other way to do it for this type of a brain. I know because I have the same type of brain."
I know you mean well but i am somewhat with biggestbrain1 on this.
The comment just comes off as mere posturing (eg. "I know because I have the same type of brain") and if you actually think about what is written down all i see is empty verbiage and something which could have been said simpler and more directly (for example there is no need to bring in "Markov Processes" here).
Dijkstra's (and Floyd/Hoare's) programming techniques are hard enough to learn that such comments merely obfuscate the essential ideas and pushes people away from trying to study it because it "appears too hard". Things should be made as simple as possible to motivate people to study and learn.
These commentaries have such nuance and focus it reads like a work of art. I appreciate the many people who contributed to this thread. A true critical reading of each person's comments. It's absolutely beautiful.
