Live data from Hacker News

_why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius

smashingmagazine.com

171–180 of 183 posts

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

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say that JackM?

Because nobody here would care if I would write 'zerogravitas' or 'ZeroGravitas' to indicate you. It's just a moniker, a handle. As soon as you start to assign great weight to the spelling and the special look ("It has to have an _") of a nickname then you're definitely in branding territory. Just like "The artist formerly called Prince" is a brand, so is "_why, they lucky stiff".

Some people care about the difference between "_why" and "Why". (Probably including the man himself.)

Some people care about similar variations in brands.

So far, so good. What's not clear (to me, at any rate) is how you get from these to "Therefore, _why's name is a brand". That would be reasonable if no one cared about details for any reason other than branding, but that's obviously false.

Compare: "... then you're definitely in programming-language territory." (Almost all implementations of almost all programming languages care very much indeed about the difference between "Why" and "_why".)

Or: "... then you're definitely in religious territory." (Some Orthodox Jews care very much about the difference between "G-d" and "God" even though the former is just a lightly modified version of the latter.)

Or: "... then you're definitely in music territory." (In a musical score, adding or removing dots, little lines, funny characters, etc., can completely change the meaning.)

Or: "... then you're definitely in vanity territory." (Some people just care a lot about appearances.)

So ... why "branding", specifically?

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

#172
post #94

Being a non-creator, the quote at the end of the article has hit me so hard, I cannot get it off my head for hours now: "When you don’t create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. Your tastes only narrow and exclude people. so create." As for the programming is a science or art debate: It is' of course wrong to make such a dichotomy. People who draw a thick boundary between these two, I thin…

'Being a non-creator, the quote at the end of the article has hit me so hard, I cannot get it off my head for hours now: "When you don’t create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. Your tastes only narrow and exclude people. so create."' How so? How do "you become defined by your tastes rather than ability"? And why do [y]our tastes only narrow and exclude people"? This sounds like one of th…

James, I don't think the two qualities have two be orthogonal, you can be a creative person with great taste in a lot of matters or not. The quote does have a touch of "pop-psych" (or, perhaps, "pop-HN" :-), but that's what makes it memorable.

Let me paraphrase what the quote says yo me: There are three types of people: the source (creator), the sink (end consumer), and the filter (the critic). Now, when I say that, I mean people for which these characteristics are dominant, of course, we all have a mixture of both. Also, we may assume different roles for different fields. And some gifted individuals can do more than once at once; John Updike comes to mind, as a top notch writer and both an literary and art critic.

The non-creator types (end consumer and critic) are defined by their tastes, which range from voting with their wallets to the up buttons in HN and links in their blogs. We are the link creators, the judges, the filters of content. However, where does all this content, code, the good stuff come from, who makes these? These are the people who make the quantum jump to creation. Just like the fact that there's a huge difference between a product that is free vs that's priced (even 10 cents), there's the gap between the consumer and the creator.

Ooops, this already became a long comment, so I don't have a chance to touch on what the part about "excluding people" parts say to me. Let me finish by pointing out a wonderful book called The Mirror and the Lamp, referring to the roles of the critic and the creator. I cannot think of a better analogy. Currently I'm all mirror and I want to change that! People like _why are a huge inspiration.

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

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does anyone have any idea what he's been doing since? Basically, the Ruby community decided that if his wish was to be gone, we'd respect that wish. Nothing has been heard since his disappearance.

"Basically, the Ruby community decided that if his wish was to be gone, we'd respect that wish." You make it sound as if there were a single monolithic Ruby community where some sort of consensus gets reached on things. That's completely imaginary. Seems more like some folks, most most, who happen to be vocal in certain circles, decided to not try to dig shit up. But that's a reflection of those people, not _The_ Rub…

Every community has subfactions; no community has a hivemind. But, like when you say, the most vocal people all agree, and there's no large dissenting voice, I feel comfortable saying 'the community.'

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

#174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To give you an example of why starkfist would say something like this, you only need to look at @_why's last few tweets: "programming is rather thankless. you see your works become replaced by superior works in a year. unable to run at all in a few more." "if you program and want any longevity to your work, make a game. all else recycles, but people rewrite architectures to keep games alive." "an ascending homage to…

I really fail to see the connection between any of that and what starkfist wrote.

Sorry for taking a bit to get back to you, I'm traveling, and my Nexus One sort of sucks for long comments.

Anyway, first, to re-iterate: nobody really knows shoes, err, why _why disappeared. This is just conjecture.

Basically, those tweets are all talking about the social constructs we've put up around programming. There are large fads, things come and go, old projects are abandoned, new projects and forks of old ones spring up. The quote about games seems to be really about hpricot; from some reports, _why was kind of upset about Nokogiri, and everyone's shift to it. If people didn't like hpricot, why not contribute, rather than make the same project over again?

The first one is something I'd also expect to hear out of someone who's getting burned out. _why did a _lot_ of things. And, since _why was an artist, he put a chunk of himself in every project he did. It's unmistakeable, all of his endeavors undoubtably have his signature attached to them. And when you put yourself out there like that, and people reject it, it's hard. It's easy to get frustrated when you invest yourself in something, and other people simply reject it out of hand. There's a dead comment at the bottom of this thread that talks about people 'giving him shit' on the shoes mailing list, which I wasn't subscribed to at the time, but with anyone as prolific as _why, I can't imagine there wasn't a fair body of naysayers. Just look at this thread, and the people that want to remove all artistry and craftsmanship from programming. Hence what starkfirst was talking about.

The naysayers won. _why got burned out. He decided his sun had set, so he burned his guitar.

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

#175
post #138
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you're using the "anything done well is an art" definition of art which is... uhh... bull. it just dilutes the term. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art . "programming" doesn't even make it as a "disputed category". sorry.

Actually, if you want my personal definition of art in one word it is this: art is life. Whether it is done "well" doesn't really come into it. In fact if there is an objective way of determining if something is done "well", it's probably not art. I'm prepared to agree to disagree on this, but I'm not prepared to agree that Wikipedia has the last word on the subject. Sorry.

Why even have a word for it? I understand the emotional idea that programming can be an art, but it doesn't change the generally understood definition of art.

I could just as well be melodramatic like that kid in American Beauty and go on about how a plastic bag being blown about by the wind is the most beautiful thing ever. I could suggest the same about the way some skillful janitor moves his mop about the floor. Just because I get emotional about it doesn't change the definition of art.

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

#176
post #134
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you're using the "anything done well is an art" definition of art which is... uhh... bull. it just dilutes the term. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art . "programming" doesn't even make it as a "disputed category". sorry.

And to be really clear, programming can be art. You can make art out of anything: paint, metal, plumbing, and yes code. But that doesn't mean that programming in general is art, like a beautifully coded sort function.

Rather, it should strive to be "art" by means of elegance, purpose, originality and in general an aesthetic which speaks of form and function joined appropriately. Anything less is merely "kitsch code" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch. Most of us spend our days programming the equivalent of replicated garden gnomes each with a slightly different expression and perhaps a different hat.

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

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really fail to see the connection between any of that and what starkfist wrote.

Sorry for taking a bit to get back to you, I'm traveling, and my Nexus One sort of sucks for long comments. Anyway, first, to re-iterate: nobody really knows shoes, err, why _why disappeared. This is just conjecture. Basically, those tweets are all talking about the social constructs we've put up around programming. There are large fads, things come and go, old projects are abandoned, new projects and forks of old on…

> Sorry for taking a bit to get back to you, I'm traveling, and my Nexus One sort of sucks for long comments.

np, no hurry :)

> Anyway, first, to re-iterate: nobody really knows shoes, err, why _why disappeared. This is just conjecture.

Ok. I figured as much, which is one of the reasons I asked. I thought that someone might be able to finally provide some hard info on this, but it seems not.

> Basically, those tweets are all talking about the social constructs we've put up around programming. There are large fads, things come and go, old projects are abandoned, new projects and forks of old ones spring up. The quote about games seems to be really about hpricot; from some reports, _why was kind of upset about Nokogiri, and everyone's shift to it. If people didn't like hpricot, why not contribute, rather than make the same project over again?

Because they can. That's the downside of giving stuff out, you lose control. If you want control then you can go corporate, but as soon as you release stuff in to the wild, if it is at a level where plenty of others could 'fork' it they probably will (or they'll start some me-too project).

This is one of the bigger downsides of open-source, there is a lot of fragmentation and not all of it is good.

> The first one is something I'd also expect to hear out of someone who's getting burned out. _why did a _lot_ of things.

Yes, I noticed that. But then again, _why is definitely not unique in that. In the Ruby scene he is, but outside of it there have been over the years more people in that vein. I've known one personally here in NL but it was before the 'dawn of the web', so none (or at least, almost none) of it is documented.

Burnout is typically a symptom of taking on more than you can deliver and then to keep on throwing more of yourself on it until there is nothing left to give. I've had it and it took me years to recover. Not quite 'didn't touch a keyboard' but very close.

> And, since _why was an artist, he put a chunk of himself in every project he did.

Everybody does that. Really, people put a piece of themselves in to their work all the time. Any creative profession has this, whether it is a designer, a programmer or a person that restores old vehicles. Work created becomes like a child.

> And when you put yourself out there like that, and people reject it, it's hard.

That's the downside of putting your work out like that.

What bothers me a bit about the _why saga is that the ending of it left a pretty bitter taste in my mouth, it's fine if you no longer want to play, but active destruction of what you've created points to mental problems a little deeper than just a burn-out.

> There's a dead comment at the bottom of this thread that talks about people 'giving him shit' on the shoes mailing list, which I wasn't subscribed to at the time, but with anyone as prolific as _why, I can't imagine there wasn't a fair body of naysayers.

Happens to all of us. I have my share of those and I'm a public 'nobody'.

> Just look at this thread, and the people that want to remove all artistry and craftsmanship from programming.

Not all. I'll be writing a long piece about that any day now, and in part it was prompted by this thread. But there is a lot more to it than 'all code is art' or 'no code is art'.

> The naysayers won. _why got burned out. He decided his sun had set, so he burned his guitar.

Any fool can destroy, but the naysayers did not burn out _why, he did that for the most part to himself. By taking on more than he could sustain-ably deliver he set himself up for a fall, and by not keeping enough distance from the trolls he allowed them to get under his skin. If you are in the public eye by accident that's one thing, but if you choose to be in the public eye by your own choice you really have to have a thick skin.

Look at all the flak that Linus, RMS and Guido van Rossum get, none of it is deserved and they just keep on giving.

One of my first exposures to contributing open source was an extremely negative one (I wrote a clone of zmodem and got crucified publicly by none other than the great Paul Vixie himself for 'copyright violation' when in fact all that happened was that a few lines of an old include file made it in to the spec for the new code, and so eventually in to the distribution. He neglected to mention that this was perfectly ok in a non-spec'd protocol and that Chuck Forsberg, the original author of zmodem was his buddy).

After that I vowed to never release code again.

I can't imagine what would have happened if I had gone through with my idea of an open source micro kernel based operating system released to the public. Probably I would have burned out a lot worse than I did on the webcam project.

Naysayers are like trolls. Ignore them, don't feed them.

As an educator (and that's how I primarily see _why) he had an exemplary role, and I think he failed in showing the people he was teaching how a mature person bows out when they realize it is no longer worth it.

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

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry for taking a bit to get back to you, I'm traveling, and my Nexus One sort of sucks for long comments. Anyway, first, to re-iterate: nobody really knows shoes, err, why _why disappeared. This is just conjecture. Basically, those tweets are all talking about the social constructs we've put up around programming. There are large fads, things come and go, old projects are abandoned, new projects and forks of old on…

> Sorry for taking a bit to get back to you, I'm traveling, and my Nexus One sort of sucks for long comments. np, no hurry :) > Anyway, first, to re-iterate: nobody really knows shoes, err, why _why disappeared. This is just conjecture. Ok. I figured as much, which is one of the reasons I asked. I thought that someone might be able to finally provide some hard info on this, but it seems not. > Basically, those tweets…

We're really in agreement. I actually wrote about this before, back when that Kanye thing hit HN: http://blog.steveklabnik.com/why-bother-creating

It's rough being out there, but you're absolutely right. You have to grow a thick skin. But that doesn't mean that everyone is able to do so.

Oh, and you were going to write a µkernel? That's awesome, I help out two of my friends with an exokernel. It's been two years of hard work, and like you conjectured, we've had a lot of naysayers. But it's coming along really nicely, I'd say...

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

#179
post #94

Being a non-creator, the quote at the end of the article has hit me so hard, I cannot get it off my head for hours now: "When you don’t create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. Your tastes only narrow and exclude people. so create." As for the programming is a science or art debate: It is' of course wrong to make such a dichotomy. People who draw a thick boundary between these two, I thin…

I've never read much of _why's work so I don't have much to add to the thread, except that: I did read that quote by _why some months ago and it hasn't gotten off my head since then. It's like a mantra, and for me it alternates between being inspiring and depressing. Perhaps I disagree with you. I think programming is a craft, but that's different from art. In any case, though every time we write some code we're crea…

Your being paid for your craft, so someone (shareholders) finds your creation "meaningful".

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

#180
post #164
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, if you want my personal definition of art in one word it is this: art is life. Whether it is done "well" doesn't really come into it. In fact if there is an objective way of determining if something is done "well", it's probably not art. I'm prepared to agree to disagree on this, but I'm not prepared to agree that Wikipedia has the last word on the subject. Sorry.

Spoken like Humpty Dumpty.

Fair enough. But you haven't given us your definition of engineering yet. According to your wiki page:

Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".

You evidently subscribe to this Romantic definition of art, but claim that engineering is neither art nor science. So that makes it... religion?

Post reply on HN