Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

_why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

smashingmagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 183 posts

Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

#21

Post by gdp »

starkfist wrote: post #19

He was sort of like a contemporary one-man open source Beagle Bros. Unfortunately there is no place in current programming culture for people like this. Programming is not art. It is certainly not whimsical. It is fun, but only fun like preparing for a rocket launch or hostile takeover is fun. Programming is science, it's engineering, it's methodology, it is bureaucracy. More importantly it is Serious Business. Progr…

As opposed to thinking of yourself as Van Gogh or Warhol? Without any financial considerations, thinking of what you do as a scientific or engineering activity is much more conducive to the creation of good software. I'm suggesting that glorifying programming as an activity is a bad idea. I'd prefer programmers thought of their programming activities as no more important than any other kind of skilled labour (clerical/administrative, plumbing, whatever). Get your fun an enjoyment from the obviously creative parts of creating software. Or take up a real art form as a hobby.

Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

#22

Post by starkfist »

gdp wrote: post #21
starkfist wrote: post #19

He was sort of like a contemporary one-man open source Beagle Bros. Unfortunately there is no place in current programming culture for people like this. Programming is not art. It is certainly not whimsical. It is fun, but only fun like preparing for a rocket launch or hostile takeover is fun. Programming is science, it's engineering, it's methodology, it is bureaucracy. More importantly it is Serious Business. Progr…

As opposed to thinking of yourself as Van Gogh or Warhol? Without any financial considerations, thinking of what you do as a scientific or engineering activity is much more conducive to the creation of good software. I'm suggesting that glorifying programming as an activity is a bad idea. I'd prefer programmers thought of their programming activities as no more important than any other kind of skilled labour (clerica…

See what I mean?

Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

#23

Post by saikat »

I remember reading a comment a while back (I think on HN) about some running joke in one of his books about a cat (or maybe it was a dog?) and how _why had actually created this whole blog to keep the joke running outside of his book. It was hilarious and impressive, but I can't find it - anyone know what I'm referring to?

Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

#24

Post by gdp »

antirez wrote: post #20
gdp wrote: post #16

Articles about _why on HN seem to always take on a particularly sycophantic quality. As a non-fan of Ruby, his contributions to programming outside of that community seem minimal. The ethic that people appear to ascribe to him ("programming as art") is precisely the opposite to that which I generally advocate ("programming as science"). I (and others) often suggest that the former approach is actually harmful to soft…

Programming as science: not consistent with reality IMHO. My argument is that it's pretty simple to build a good computer scientist: take a guy with good IQ and put it into a good university. But there are zero guarantees that you'll end with a good coder also, as coding is a matter of taste, tradeoffs, design decisions, creativity, ability to think out of the box, and so forth. The problem is that most of our indust…

I don't consider programming to be a much greater skill than the ability to install fixed wiring in a house or balance a budget. Are small business accountants "artists"?

Accordingly, programming is not _currently_ a science. However, I think that is a much better position to aspire to than self-aggrandizement and glorifying a skill that is really no different than any other skill that any suitably motivated 12 year can acquire with a couple library books and an internet connection.

With a science of programming, we can aspire to a position where programmers can at least claim to be engineers, and at least have good odds of most programming projects resulting in software of reasonable quality. Face it, there's good art and bad art, and it's subjective which is which. Programs have objective measures we can apply, depending on what the code is used for - developer time, performance, correctness... and a million others. We can argue about which measures are the right ones to use, but at least these measures exist. We can (with current technology) empirically evaluate a piece of code in many different ways. Actually starting to apply this kind of empirical evaluation is the first step towards programming being a science.

[Edit: OK, so the parent to this was heavily edited after I posted this, but I can't be bothered rewriting this accordingly, so please excuse any incongruence between this reply and the post it is replying to]

Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

#25

Post by antirez »

gdp wrote: post #24
antirez wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming as science: not consistent with reality IMHO. My argument is that it's pretty simple to build a good computer scientist: take a guy with good IQ and put it into a good university. But there are zero guarantees that you'll end with a good coder also, as coding is a matter of taste, tradeoffs, design decisions, creativity, ability to think out of the box, and so forth. The problem is that most of our indust…

I don't consider programming to be a much greater skill than the ability to install fixed wiring in a house or balance a budget. Are small business accountants "artists"? Accordingly, programming is not _currently_ a science. However, I think that is a much better position to aspire to than self-aggrandizement and glorifying a skill that is really no different than any other skill that any suitably motivated 12 year…

> With a science of programming, we can aspire to a position where programmers can at least claim to be engineers.

This is not a good aspiration I think. Engineers can be replaced with not huge efforts, while you can't easily replace artists.

Also this vision will lead to more bad programmers coming out from universities (if programming is an art), as the process of learning programming is totally different if you think it's a science or art. If it's a science, do CS courses. If it is an art, put them into craftsman shops to learn how to code.

Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

#26

Post by davidalln »

gdp wrote: post #16

Articles about _why on HN seem to always take on a particularly sycophantic quality. As a non-fan of Ruby, his contributions to programming outside of that community seem minimal. The ethic that people appear to ascribe to him ("programming as art") is precisely the opposite to that which I generally advocate ("programming as science"). I (and others) often suggest that the former approach is actually harmful to soft…

I think dismissing "programming as art" as irrelevant and hurtful to the community is dangerous. Here we have the tools to create a near-infinite amount of almost everything that can run on a computer. We use code to run complicated robots that can drive a course without human input, solve the most complicated mathematic problems of today, and create artificial intelligence with the ability to learn as it ages. Yet at the same time, we use code to make short chiptune songs and fun small games hacked away in an hour or two.

Wikipedia defines art as "the product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions", and science as "the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories." Why do these two things have to be mutually exclusive? Through creation and exploring, such as in _why's projects, we are further "gathering knowledge" about the limits computers can be used. And at the same time, we are creating art as these programs have had a clear impact on at least the Ruby community.

And, bringing up a more "sciencey" example, if the fact that my handheld calculator can solve complicated algebra and calculus equations in less than a second doesn't "affect [your] senses or emotions", then you need a reality check on just how impressive technology has come in such a short time.

I personally believe that programming is one of the rawest forms of creation imaginable, and therefore must be of some artistic worth. Simply calling it science and moving on does a disservice to those who slaved for so many hours working on their piece of computer science history.

Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

#27

Post by gdp »

starkfist wrote: post #22
gdp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to thinking of yourself as Van Gogh or Warhol? Without any financial considerations, thinking of what you do as a scientific or engineering activity is much more conducive to the creation of good software. I'm suggesting that glorifying programming as an activity is a bad idea. I'd prefer programmers thought of their programming activities as no more important than any other kind of skilled labour (clerica…

See what I mean?

No, I really don't. I'm suggesting that self-importance is a negative trait for programmers to hold. To me, cat pictures and silly songs are actually just another form of pretentious self-importance.

Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

#28

Post by gdp »

davidalln wrote: post #26
gdp wrote: post #16

Articles about _why on HN seem to always take on a particularly sycophantic quality. As a non-fan of Ruby, his contributions to programming outside of that community seem minimal. The ethic that people appear to ascribe to him ("programming as art") is precisely the opposite to that which I generally advocate ("programming as science"). I (and others) often suggest that the former approach is actually harmful to soft…

I think dismissing "programming as art" as irrelevant and hurtful to the community is dangerous. Here we have the tools to create a near-infinite amount of almost everything that can run on a computer. We use code to run complicated robots that can drive a course without human input, solve the most complicated mathematic problems of today, and create artificial intelligence with the ability to learn as it ages. Yet a…

I agree that computing as an activity has manifestations that could be understood to be art, but that doesn't make _programming_ art. Glorifying programming as an art is like glorifying spelling as salient to the quality of Shakespeare's plays. Programming is the act of expressing programs. Coming up with interesting things for those programs to do definitely follows a creative process of human inspiration, but actually writing those programs down is not an "art". It's a fairly normative process in most cases, and it can (and should!) be made more normative.

Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

#29

Post by jmillikin »

davidalln wrote: post #26
gdp wrote: post #16

Articles about _why on HN seem to always take on a particularly sycophantic quality. As a non-fan of Ruby, his contributions to programming outside of that community seem minimal. The ethic that people appear to ascribe to him ("programming as art") is precisely the opposite to that which I generally advocate ("programming as science"). I (and others) often suggest that the former approach is actually harmful to soft…

I think dismissing "programming as art" as irrelevant and hurtful to the community is dangerous. Here we have the tools to create a near-infinite amount of almost everything that can run on a computer. We use code to run complicated robots that can drive a course without human input, solve the most complicated mathematic problems of today, and create artificial intelligence with the ability to learn as it ages. Yet a…

Code can be used to create art. Wood can be used to create art. An HTML parser is not art, any more than disposable chopsticks are.

I've never understood _why's fan base; he seems to be no more than somebody who popped up, wrote a few low-quality libraries for an obscure language, and then vanished.

Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

#30

Post by starkfist »

jmillikin wrote: post #29
davidalln wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think dismissing "programming as art" as irrelevant and hurtful to the community is dangerous. Here we have the tools to create a near-infinite amount of almost everything that can run on a computer. We use code to run complicated robots that can drive a course without human input, solve the most complicated mathematic problems of today, and create artificial intelligence with the ability to learn as it ages. Yet a…

Code can be used to create art. Wood can be used to create art. An HTML parser is not art, any more than disposable chopsticks are. I've never understood _why's fan base; he seems to be no more than somebody who popped up, wrote a few low-quality libraries for an obscure language, and then vanished.

Well, he's gone now. So you guys won.
Post reply on HN