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

Discovering Dennis Ritchie’s Lost Dissertation

computerhistory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 139 posts

Re: Discovering Dennis Ritchie’s Lost Dissertation

#11

Post by amelius »

mettamage wrote: post #3
linsomniac wrote: post #2

When I was a teen, K&R The C Programming Language changed my life. Years later I shared an elevator with him at Usenix. I always regretted not saying something to him, but I didn't have the words. Kids: If you meet your heroes, say something. "Thank you" is good if you don't have the words.

When approaching strangers, saying something appreciative in a respectful way is neutral at absolute worst and quite amazing at best. Case in point: Andrew Tanenbaum: I said that his work was amazing and thanked him. He shrugged me off. I think he felt busy or didn’t care. I was happy that he listened. Jane McGonigal: retweeted my question while I had 0 followers and followed about 10 people. A semi-famous Dutch rapp…

People who are bad at receiving compliments are often bad at giving them too, and vice versa.

Re: Discovering Dennis Ritchie’s Lost Dissertation

#12

Post by searchableguy »

mettamage wrote: post #3
linsomniac wrote: post #2

When I was a teen, K&R The C Programming Language changed my life. Years later I shared an elevator with him at Usenix. I always regretted not saying something to him, but I didn't have the words. Kids: If you meet your heroes, say something. "Thank you" is good if you don't have the words.

When approaching strangers, saying something appreciative in a respectful way is neutral at absolute worst and quite amazing at best. Case in point: Andrew Tanenbaum: I said that his work was amazing and thanked him. He shrugged me off. I think he felt busy or didn’t care. I was happy that he listened. Jane McGonigal: retweeted my question while I had 0 followers and followed about 10 people. A semi-famous Dutch rapp…

> Andrew Tanenbaum: I said that his work was amazing and thanked him. He shrugged me off. I think he felt busy or didn’t care. I was happy that he listened.

I have the same reaction to people thanking me out of nowhere especially when I am deep into my own thoughts and it's awkward to say something after the shrug. The realisation comes latter. So there is a chance he did appreciate your thank you but couldn't reply back properly.

Re: Discovering Dennis Ritchie’s Lost Dissertation

#13

Post by notkaiho »

elygre wrote: post #7
linsomniac wrote: post #2

When I was a teen, K&R The C Programming Language changed my life. Years later I shared an elevator with him at Usenix. I always regretted not saying something to him, but I didn't have the words. Kids: If you meet your heroes, say something. "Thank you" is good if you don't have the words.

A friend of mine once found herself seated next to Paulo Coelho (famous author of e.g. The Alchemist) on a flight. She was a huge fan, but out of respect for his privacy did not initiate any conversation. Turns out he’s been flying to be part of a major talk show. The next night she watches the host ask the author about being famous. The author responds by saying that best part is that people approach him, and that h…

But, as your friend thought, being respectful is also important. By all means say thank you, but don't expect much response beyond an acknowledgement. Famous people get TIRED of strangers talking to them, as much as they like the random encounters.

Re: Discovering Dennis Ritchie’s Lost Dissertation

#14

Post by 082349872349872 »

dang wrote: post #10

> My graduate school experience convinced me that I was not smart enough to be an expert in the theory of algorithms and also that I liked procedural languages better than functional ones. I wonder if that last bit was as unfashionable a statement when he made it as it would be now.

The pro argument: many of the people I've exchanged email with[1] from that period have indicated that functional had more geek cred even then.

The con argument: we have enough memory and cpu now that functional languages are more practical than they ever were, which may help them be more prêt-à-porter fashion than the haute couture of a geekish peacock tail or springbok leap.

[1] I'm usually asking questions about long-dead endian-style controversies (cue the compromise of arrays starting at 0,5), and it's been nice to hear many of the people involved recommending the work of their opposites. Folk history seems to ascribe more dogmatic attitudes to the people who lived through technical controversies than they actually have.

Another lesson learned: when I try to tease out chains of influences, a not uncommon response is "I wish I'd been that clever, really it was just hacked together."

Re: Discovering Dennis Ritchie’s Lost Dissertation

#15

Post by mayankkaizen »

082349872349872 wrote: post #14
dang wrote: post #10

> My graduate school experience convinced me that I was not smart enough to be an expert in the theory of algorithms and also that I liked procedural languages better than functional ones. I wonder if that last bit was as unfashionable a statement when he made it as it would be now.

The pro argument: many of the people I've exchanged email with[1] from that period have indicated that functional had more geek cred even then. The con argument: we have enough memory and cpu now that functional languages are more practical than they ever were, which may help them be more prêt-à-porter fashion than the haute couture of a geekish peacock tail or springbok leap. [1] I'm usually asking questions about l…

Your second para has contributed few things to my English language knowledge.

Re: Discovering Dennis Ritchie’s Lost Dissertation

#16

Post by tinco »

dang wrote: post #10

> My graduate school experience convinced me that I was not smart enough to be an expert in the theory of algorithms and also that I liked procedural languages better than functional ones. I wonder if that last bit was as unfashionable a statement when he made it as it would be now.

Functional programming languages have alway been somewhat dismissed by most. Even though every once in a while functional programming becomes somewhat of a hot topic, only few programmers actually take it up as their main or favourite programming style. I'd say Ritchie's attitude there is and was kind of mainstream. I suppose just as C (or C style languages) have been mainstream for the past 40 years.

Re: Discovering Dennis Ritchie’s Lost Dissertation

#17

Post by [deleted] »

notkaiho wrote: post #13
elygre wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine once found herself seated next to Paulo Coelho (famous author of e.g. The Alchemist) on a flight. She was a huge fan, but out of respect for his privacy did not initiate any conversation. Turns out he’s been flying to be part of a major talk show. The next night she watches the host ask the author about being famous. The author responds by saying that best part is that people approach him, and that h…

But, as your friend thought, being respectful is also important. By all means say thank you, but don't expect much response beyond an acknowledgement. Famous people get TIRED of strangers talking to them, as much as they like the random encounters.

[deleted]

Re: Discovering Dennis Ritchie’s Lost Dissertation

#19

Post by 082349872349872 »

mayankkaizen wrote: post #15
082349872349872 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pro argument: many of the people I've exchanged email with[1] from that period have indicated that functional had more geek cred even then. The con argument: we have enough memory and cpu now that functional languages are more practical than they ever were, which may help them be more prêt-à-porter fashion than the haute couture of a geekish peacock tail or springbok leap. [1] I'm usually asking questions about l…

Your second para has contributed few things to my English language knowledge.

Sorry, I'll reword:

Thanks to Moore's Law, functional programming is no longer just for the mainframe, but can now be used for normal programs on standard platforms. If more people choose functional now just because they like the style[1], then it could be that procedural would be becoming less fashionable[2] over time.

[1] instead of before, when "wearing the hair shirt" of functional programming could be seen as declaring oneself a strong enough hacker that one could hack despite all the practical drawbacks.

(compare "Honest Costly Signal" in the context of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23570975 )

[2] in the mass fashion vs class fashion sense.

(compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23560291 . I doubt it's controversial to say functional has always been on the Joycean side.)

Re: Discovering Dennis Ritchie’s Lost Dissertation

#20

Post by unixhero »

tinco wrote: post #16
dang wrote: post #10

> My graduate school experience convinced me that I was not smart enough to be an expert in the theory of algorithms and also that I liked procedural languages better than functional ones. I wonder if that last bit was as unfashionable a statement when he made it as it would be now.

Functional programming languages have alway been somewhat dismissed by most. Even though every once in a while functional programming becomes somewhat of a hot topic, only few programmers actually take it up as their main or favourite programming style. I'd say Ritchie's attitude there is and was kind of mainstream. I suppose just as C (or C style languages) have been mainstream for the past 40 years.

Except every non programmer with a business degree seem to love functional programming: Microsoft Excel
Post reply on HN