Agreed. I gave a similar definition in a parallel thread. My question is, is it being used in that sense here by Nacraile. My followup question is, is that's how it's usually used? I get the stronger sense that it indicates that one is a hacker, than that it's being used for an otherwise missing concept.
I find people usually use it to mean the point where they could modify the code and expect it to probably work. I might not really understand all the details, but I know it well enough to become part of it. Which really fits the origional definition far more than understand.
The original definition is "to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthling assumptions) as color means to a blind man."
Your description here is nothing like the original meaning.
To use more flowery language. You merge your thoughts with those who came before allowing for synthesis, extention, or improvement. Nothing in the book suggests grocking is total understanding just the point where there ready to act. So, being able to follow the thought process of the coder(s) who came before instead of just reading the logic is a deeper understanding. Sum=54; Foreach(int x in Dalist) sum += x;
The logic is easy to follow. But WTF is 54. Until I understand why 54 is there I don't grock the code even if I understand what it does. Again I might not agree with the coder but I need to understand what they where thinking before I can change anything.
