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

151–160 of 183 posts

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

#151

Post by jacquesm »

Hexstream wrote: post #149
jacquesm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This prediction has been made for decades now. I suppose if people keep predicting this indefinitely, someday it will become true. One day is on purpose very vague, I haven't a clue on what timescale we're talking. But I'm fairly sure what will be the sign that we've reached it, it's when we will remove the term programming from language and use 'teaching' instead. > This is up to you. Was building Google, Amazon,…

"many programmers seem to think there is something 'magical' about the ability to program, as if there is some kind of essential element that differentiates those that can program from those that can not." You should read this, and maybe the linked academic paper, too: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/07/separating-programm...

I challenge you to find someone that I can't teach how to program a computer.

Maybe they won't be the next Donald Knuth, but they'll be able to hold down a job and make a living. I guarantee it.

You ship 'm I'll teach 'm, no matter how much time it takes I'll do it. The only pre-requirements are a willingness to learn and a willingness to spend the time, as well as an iq of 80 or more.

Anybody can do it, not equally fast, not equally good, some may hate it and some may love it.

That test is so biased it's not even funny, I've linked the script below, it assumes that people will clue in to the different meaning of the '=' sign in programming (assignment) as opposed to what it means in the rest of math (equality). I note that some programmers that are very well seasoned have been caught to mess up '==' and '='.

I always thought that the '=' sign for assignment was a huge mistake and that 'But it's a little late for that now. What galls me even more about that test is that instead of providing a warm up with a bunch of assignment samples and 'print' statements afterwards would have given the really interested parties a shot at figuring out how it works, to test their assumptions.

The problem with programming is an educational one, not some kind of genetic pre-disposition to being able to program.

Just as there are people that are better and not-so-good at arithmetic there are people that are better and not-so-good at programming.

It's a skill thing, and if you work at it hard enough you can get better. The ten thousand hour rule definitely applies. If that's not the case then how come there are a thousand and one books that will teach you how to become a (better) programmer. It is teachable, it is a skill, there is no magic component, in spite of what this so-called study says.

Here is the test script:

http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/test(week-0)...

Have read, and see what you think, try to pretend that you have no programming knowledge and that all you know is arithmetic, it basically tests a single question in different forms over and over again.

In my opinion, a much better way to grade people to find out who will be the 'good' programmers is to find who is good at solving puzzles.

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

#152

Post by jacquesm »

jfager wrote: post #61
jacquesm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I always thought he was one of the most creative people currently working in any medium, You live a sheltered life. A few million creative artists would probably disagree without you, some violently so. Yes, it was nice to have him around, no, he's not that special. Have a look at Alan Kay for an example of someone who is special.

Slagging someone who approached computing the way Alan Kay has tirelessly advocated for his whole career by pointing out how short he falls of Alan Kay seems a little, uh, un-Alan-Kay-like.

I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I think in fact that the reference to Alan Kay was probably quite appropriate. Alan Kay has been at it for decades, _why has done it for a few years and then destroyed (or at least, attempted to destroy) whatever he made. Now, in principle, that is his good right, but when you're an educator and people have started to come to depend on your educational tools and have built a little eco-system around it destroying it is an extremely selfish act and causes a lot of damage.

The very least he could have done would have been to transfer the maintenance to others in an orderly way in stead of this wanton act of vandalism, and without a second of warning to boot.

_why was a very good influence during the first period and he may have approached computing the way Alan Kay has tirelessly advocated for his whole career, but he wiped out a lot of that credit at the end.

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

#153

Post by gdp »

jacquesm wrote: post #52
barrkel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Radically disagree with you there. Wiring is in principle really simple - make sure the right wires are connected, insulated properly with appropriate safeguards; accounting is similar, where there are essentially only four kinds of things. Putting together a large piece of software, or optimizing a particular path in a large codebase, or putting together a creative solution to a class of problems, requires a much hi…

Programming is in principle really simple - make sure the right lines of code are used, follow each other and are debugged properly. Sure, putting together a large piece of software is hard, but then again, putting together the electrical system for a nuclear plant or something on that order of complexity is just as hard, if not harder (no 'undo' switch on that one). There has to be a way to see that programming is r…

Without knowing anything about you, on the basis of this comment, I suspect you are a much better programmer than most people who constantly talk about how difficult their programming work is.

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

#154

Post by jacquesm »

gdp wrote: post #153
jacquesm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Programming is in principle really simple - make sure the right lines of code are used, follow each other and are debugged properly. Sure, putting together a large piece of software is hard, but then again, putting together the electrical system for a nuclear plant or something on that order of complexity is just as hard, if not harder (no 'undo' switch on that one). There has to be a way to see that programming is r…

Without knowing anything about you, on the basis of this comment, I suspect you are a much better programmer than most people who constantly talk about how difficult their programming work is.

I've been trying for several months now to get my head wrapped around the 'functional paradigm' (oh I hate that word), so far with very little progress so I'm not so sure about that ;)

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

#155

Post by gdp »

technomancy wrote: post #85
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…

> As a non-fan of Ruby, his contributions to programming outside of that community seem minimal. Funny, that's exactly the kind of thing I'd expect _why to say if he were to take up a new pseudonym and participate in discussions on Hacker News. I'm sure he'd just be trying to convince us that he wasn't actually all that great.

Oh, dammit, you got me!

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

#156

Post by gdp »

igravious wrote: post #36
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…

Yo. I would suggest that as an admitted non-fan of Ruby then you are in no position to comment. Besides, _why could draw, anyone could appreciate his stuff I'd imagine. He could play music. He had a quirky sense of humour, and was a creative and endlessly surprising person. Now, this ain't sycophantic as you call, he genuinely was these things. Sorry if that bothers you. There's this cute paper some guy once wrote, i…

Allow me to quote a randomly-chosen comment from this thread:

> _why's influence isn't only in code, but in thinking. And if you look around, for example on github, you will see a lot of people hacking away for fun, trying out new stuff and just doing something they love to do. Did _why start this trend? He didn't, but he was a big advocate of it.

Yes, that's right, this person appears to be seriously suggesting that _why could have been responsible for people hacking for fun (in the "I'm not saying that...", right after saying it kinda way).

> I'd argue his unique way of thinking has also pushed the boundaries of programming as a science in the way that calculus changed people's ways of thinking about math and physics.

As influential on programming as calculus was on maths and physics? Really? _why is on equal footing with Newton and Leibniz now?

> As for his strange charisma, I would say _why is to programming as Ramanujan was to mathematics.

This one suggests that _why is to programming as a Fellow of the Royal Society was to mathematics! Awesome!

> I always thought he was one of the most creative people currently working in any medium,

Yep. That one pretty much speaks for itself.

I mean, the _title_ of the article is "A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius".

Need I go on? I believe my use of the word "sycophantic" was justified and I stand by it. Genuine praise for someone's achievements is completely justified and should be given freely. This is not genuine praise. It appears to be a pissing contest between different people trying to find the most absurd hyperbole with which to describe the effect that _why had on them, the Ruby community, the programming world and the entire universe and all matter contained within it.

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

#157

Post by jimbokun »

jacquesm wrote: post #151
Hexstream wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"many programmers seem to think there is something 'magical' about the ability to program, as if there is some kind of essential element that differentiates those that can program from those that can not." You should read this, and maybe the linked academic paper, too: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2006/07/separating-programm...

I challenge you to find someone that I can't teach how to program a computer. Maybe they won't be the next Donald Knuth, but they'll be able to hold down a job and make a living. I guarantee it. You ship 'm I'll teach 'm, no matter how much time it takes I'll do it. The only pre-requirements are a willingness to learn and a willingness to spend the time, as well as an iq of 80 or more. Anybody can do it, not equally…

"The only pre-requirements are a willingness to learn and a willingness to spend the time..."

There are many people for who this is not true when it comes to programming, and this is why they will never become a programmer (good or otherwise).

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

#158

Post by chc »

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…

You sound like a Java programmer who doesn't see what makes ivory-tower ninnies like McCarthy or Knuth so great. "Because this person's work was focused in a different area than mine and he values different things than me, anybody who praises his work — no matter how earnestly and without hope of reward — is a sycophant."

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

#159

Post by chc »

gdp wrote: post #27
starkfist wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is there anything fun and joyful that is not a form of self-importance?

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

#160

Post by chc »

sh4na wrote: post #140

Funny how a guy who decides to pull out of the open source community and pull the plug on essential projects used by the community without so much as a line of warning is depicted as a hero. Self-centered jerk is more appropriate in this case, but it seems that the more excentric the behaviour, the more genius you are, regardless of the fact that there are vast numbers of developers who contribute daily, monthly, yea…

Yes, it was a bit of a dick move to simply take the content offline, but the fact is that he created this content in the first place. If he hadn't done something very valuable, nobody would have cared when it was gone. Does one inconsiderate act counteract all of his contributions? Even with all of his stuff deleted, his contribution to the community was still bigger than yours or mine, so I'm going to say no.
Post reply on HN