Live data from Hacker News

PG's Rarely Asked Questions

paulgraham.com

131–140 of 221 posts

Re: PG's Rarely Asked Questions

#131
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there is some discussion in the other thread, but I'll add my own. You ask that philosophy be useful. Here then, is a useful question: Suppose that my mother has Alzheimer's disease, and that I find the prospect of caring for her inconvenient, undesirable, and/or expensive. Do I have a responsibility to care for her anyway? It is "useful" because it could potentially describe a real-life situation in which one mig…

That sort of question is certainly important. I worry though that like most of ethics this is one of those cases where philosophers don't get any better answers than your grandmother.

Paul, I don't think my grandmother could give me a very good justification for why she eats meat. I, however, armed with Singer's arguments from Animal Liberation could show that eating meat needs to be justified and that I can't justify it. Same goes for whether profiting from closed source software is ethical. Same goes for whether homosexuality is evil. These are all cases in which it would be possible to show, systematically, how one's views are contradictory, or really empirical questions. This appears to be a philosophical task, not a common sense one.

Re: PG's Rarely Asked Questions

#132
post #75
post #14

He's really wrong about LISP macros. Would suggest pg takes a look at camlp4. Edit: maybe instead of downvotes, you could reply explaining what's wrong with this position. Or just look at camlp4 and see how it provides macros that are better (with a better underlying language) than LISP. And yes, I've written a LISP compiler.

You questioned PG and LISP in one comment then advocated another language with a lesser Nerd Lore Composite Score. About the only thing you could have done worse is to admit you wrote a child porn site in both and found LISP's parentheses to be annoying. :-)

PG's assertions are often hard to question, probably because he studied philosophy and is very good at logic. He doesn't say it's impossible and his definition of lisp is very inclusive.

I read some of the docs for camlp4. It looks like a library for extending ocaml using syntax grammars, similar to Langscape(formerly EasyExtend) for Python. It's not clear whether that really addresses PG's point (a). It would be really nice if rwmj would make his point explicit instead of whining about downvotes and telling people to go slog through camlp4's incomplete, broken-english documentation.

Re: PG's Rarely Asked Questions

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question was: "I want to start a startup, but I don't know how to program. How long will it take to learn?" So, he wants to "learn" "how to program". Good objective, clearly stated. For your "All you need at first is something you can type text into that knows how to highlight syntax. You don't even need to know the features of that particular editor, aside from stuff like 'save' and 'open'." Your "All you need a…

You're making things unnecessarily difficult for yourself, and I don't know if it's because you're ignorant of other options, because you lack the ability to figure out better solutions to your problems, or because you have an irrational compulsion for unproductive busywork. I've never heard of anyone actually documenting every click it takes to configure Outlook. I don't even know what you're talking about when you…

You are uninformed, have some problems with reading comprehension, have too little knowledge of computing, or are just trying to criticize for no good reason.

Everything I said is well informed and well justified.

While you were not clear on just what you did on a Mac, for your

"Here's how I solved the backup problem: I bought an external hard drive, connected it to my Mac, and clicked "yes" when my Mac asked if I wanted to use it for backups."

on Windows XP SP3 that in no way addresses the problem I explained now twice: Back up a bootable partition so that it can be restored and bootable.

One severe problem with such backup is backing up a booted partition as it is running. As I explained, NTBACKUP has this problem solved, with 'volume shadow copy', but the solution is involved. You didn't describe how Mac has this problem solved.

As I explained, the problem with NTBACKUP is the documentation and getting the options so that the backup can be restored and be bootable. Due to the documentation problems, that is NOT easy.

And once you have such a backup of a bootable partition, how do you restore it? I do have a solution, have tested it, and have shown that it WORKS.

Again, yet again, there can be solutions with third party software and/or versions of Windows after XP SP3, but for that version of Windows what I wrote is a very accurate description of what HAS to be done if just using Microsoft's software.

Your claim that I am making things too difficult in backup is just flatly WRONG -- uninformed, misinformed, and just plain WRONG.

For Outlook, your solution was to use gmail. That has some pros and cons, and I don't like the cons.

For writing down all the clicks in configuring Outlook, you don't have a better solution. There are a LOT of options for Outlook -- a LOT. Some of them are important for security. About the only way to get all the options right is to do JUST what I did. Security problems with bad options in e-mail programs have been grim for years; maybe most Outlook users without a support group to set all the options have some security holes.

Your claim that I am making things too difficult in Outlook is just flatly WRONG -- uninformed, misinformed, and just plain WRONG.

Heck, I even omitted describing setting options for Internet Explorer and Firefox. For Firefox, a default option is to PERMIT running Java in a Web page. OUTRAGEOUS security hole: Java can do ANYTHING. If a user is not REALLY careful with Firefox options, then they will have Java enabled.

Your

"though I've never met a serious programmer who actually uses Visual Basic"

taken literally means nothing but suggests something misinformed, uninformed, and just plain wrong: In fact, on Windows, the .NET version of Visual Basic is fine: It gives essentially full access to the basic 'common language runtime' (CLR) and .NET; it has full 'managed code' including its memory management; using another language on the CLR is mostly just a matter of different syntactic sugar. An advantage of Visual Basic is that the syntax is easy to read and not borrowed from the too sparse and idiosyncratic C/C++ tradition as in C#.

When I hire people, I will have them start on Visual Basic because it is easier to get going with than C#.

On Windows, what language would you use? C/C++? That's not Windows 'managed code', and managed code is IMPORTANT. So your main options will be C# or Visual Basic. You could use either one, but working for me I'd ask you to use Visual Basic. You would not be able to use C/C++.

Your claim that I am doing something wrong using Visual Basic .NET is just flatly WRONG -- uninformed, misinformed, and just plain WRONG.

For your

"I don't even know what you're talking about when you say you "index" and "abstract" API docs--I just keep them open in a browser window and search for things I don't remember offhand."

your confession that you don't know is on target. As I wrote, I have something over 2500 Web pages of Microsoft MSDN documentation. For those 2500 pages, what you described is not a solution. For a solution, my "index" and "abstract" are a good solution: So, I have some simple, 'flat ASCII' files. I have one for each of Visual Basic, Windows, ASP.NET, and SQL Server. Typically I have about two of these files open in my favorite editor. For an issue, say, about ASP.NET or related parts of .NET or communications, I start with the file for ASP.NET. In that file each Web page of documentation has a few lines. Some of the lines give the title of the Web page; another line gives the tree name of that Web page on my system; those two lines form the 'index' and are an appropriate use of 'index'. Also there are a few more lines that say a little more about what is in the page, typically copied from the first paragraph or two of the page. If the page is a good 'root' page for a larger topic, then that is noted. Those extra lines are the 'abstract'. And there can be some additional notes of mine.

To find something, I just use the 'locate' command of my editor. Then to open the Web page, in my editor I give one keystroke on the line with the tree name.

Works fine.

But there's no way, as you suggest, to have all 2500 Web page files open at once, and your solution said nothing about how to find the right one of the 2500 pages but my solution did. And there is no XP SP3 'search' function nearly as effective as what I have with the four files and my editor.

Your solution with 2500 Web pages would be much less productive, not more.

Same for using a weak editor, C/C++, MAKE instead of a scripting language, and more. And your suggestion for backup on XP SP3 has little chance of resulting in being able to restore the boot partition so that it will boot.

Your claim that I am doing something wrong with my indexing and abstracting of those 2500 Web pages is just flatly WRONG -- uninformed, misinformed, and just plain WRONG.

For your "ignorant", "irrational compulsion", "unproductive busywork", those are all insulting, uninformed, misinformed, and just plain WRONG.

Again, yet again, one more time, the original question, go back and read it for yourself, was:

"I want to start a startup, but I don't know how to program. How long will it take to learn?"

and you responded with

"That's all I needed to do to be productive"

which does not answer the original question.

E.g., you said nothing about SQL Server. Hmm .... So, yes, from a plugin in a Web browser, I got a virus. Right: Now I keep nearly all plugins disabled. Have to work at this since some software installs and enables browser plugins without notice. That virus was from one use of the Akamai download manager to get a PDF file on a motherboard from an Asus Web site. Bummer.

So, to be sure to solve the virus problem, I reinstalled Windows, Office .NET, TeX, SQL Server, etc.

Then I wanted SQL Server to read my old database, which was not on the boot drive and not damaged in the reinstallation. So, I used the T-SQL CREATE with ATTACH. This didn't work (for complicated reasons, not my fault). Finally, in trying to get SQL Server to use my old database, SQL Server got 'sick' and quit doing much of anything. So, I tried to uninstall SQL Server. It wouldn't. I tried to 'repair' it; it wouldn't repair. I tried to reinstall SQL Server; it wouldn't. Basically SQL Server had just wiped out my boot drive, and I had to start over with the boot drive. BUMMER.

Now I have a backup, bootable, of my boot partition with everything installed EXCEPT SQL Server so that if SQL Server ruins my boot partition again I will be able to restore the boot partition from just before SQL Server and then reinstall SQL Server. Some of what is important with Windows and SQL Server 'administration and management'.

Yes, I have more than one bootable partition!

One of the problems was that when I installed SQL Server as I had before the virus, what was installed was different -- strongly against my wishes, I ended up with two versions of SQL Server with 'side by side' installation. Well, apparently 'side by side' is just awash in bugs so that can't uninstall, repair, or reinstall.

I finally got through it, but it was NOT fast.

You didn't mention SQL Server. But for the original question, SQL Server or some substitute stands to be important.

So, what you are doing that is "productive" does not answer the original question. I answered the original question, and you didn't.

On what I'm doing, you are WRONG, consistently, 100% WRONG.

That's enough of responding to your errors.

Re: PG's Rarely Asked Questions

#134
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sort of question is certainly important. I worry though that like most of ethics this is one of those cases where philosophers don't get any better answers than your grandmother.

Paul, I don't think my grandmother could give me a very good justification for why she eats meat. I, however, armed with Singer's arguments from Animal Liberation could show that eating meat needs to be justified and that I can't justify it. Same goes for whether profiting from closed source software is ethical. Same goes for whether homosexuality is evil. These are all cases in which it would be possible to show, sy…

> I, however, armed with Singer's arguments from Animal Liberation could show that eating meat needs to be justified and that I can't justify it.

The amount of philosophy needed is not too significant. One needs to know enough logic to show that inability to find a justification doesn't mean a justification doesn't exist.

So if someone is using Singer's arguments from Animal Liberation to persecute meat eaters and you want to do something about it, general skill at persuasion is more important than philosophy.

Re: PG's Rarely Asked Questions

#135
post #123
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... Architects, Test Designers... The two examples you use, would have to be the best examples of 'waste' in the software industry. I liken them to having someone on your team who is "The Debugger" where all he does is debug the developers code. Developers should know how to test their code/app and should know how to design their app, and know how to debug their app. Sure they could 'specialise' one or more of thes…

Specialization is an adaptation that seems wasteful when it isn't needed but makes a huge increase to efficiency when it is. Yes, architects and test designers can be a waste. But they can also act to make developer's lives easier. Good architects can code, but usually act at a higher level - making sure different projects (a) know about each other, and (b) work together. That's important because teams tend to focus…

> Good architects can code...

Is synonymous with good developers are also good architects.

I think (if I can articulate my thoughts correctly) my meaning was, that there is an obsession with breaking tasks into specific roles that are then the sole responsibility of one person. To the point of inefficiency (given the number of people you have to talk to for a given feature).

I don't agree that specialisation is wasteful (for the project at least). If it isn't needed, the person can still be a 'standard' dev. But if it is needed, they contribute more. (The only waste is to the individual if they specialise in an un-needed skill).

Re: PG's Rarely Asked Questions

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paul, I don't think my grandmother could give me a very good justification for why she eats meat. I, however, armed with Singer's arguments from Animal Liberation could show that eating meat needs to be justified and that I can't justify it. Same goes for whether profiting from closed source software is ethical. Same goes for whether homosexuality is evil. These are all cases in which it would be possible to show, sy…

> I, however, armed with Singer's arguments from Animal Liberation could show that eating meat needs to be justified and that I can't justify it. The amount of philosophy needed is not too significant. One needs to know enough logic to show that inability to find a justification doesn't mean a justification doesn't exist. So if someone is using Singer's arguments from Animal Liberation to persecute meat eaters and yo…

I glossed over some of the subtleties. To show that eating animals needs to be justified requires extending our ethical framework to animals beyond humans. Nobody feels the need to justify eating vegetables, for example, nor have compelling arguments been presented that this is unwarranted.

Also: most disciplines require "general skill at persuasion," philosophy being no exception.

Re: PG's Rarely Asked Questions

#137
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the omissions that are the problem, not errors. You have selectively ignored major areas of philosophy in order to make your ideas seem original and compelling.

Even omissions should cause sentences in the essay to be false though. Is there really not one sentence you believe is false? (Also, would you mind being civil? I'm doing it; you can too.)

Hmm, I know I'll get downvoted for this, but I don't think he's being uncivil, pg. He made an accusation against you, but he didn't do it in an uncivil manner. Asking him to be civil strikes me as weird, and possibly that you're being too defensive?

Re: PG's Rarely Asked Questions

#138
post #110

The tendentious answer on philosophy is an invitation for what would be another "Dabblers and Blowhards" drive-by shooting. It's not enormously surprising that this question is 'rarely asked'. One would learn a lot more about philosophy ("what questions are these guys asking?" "what are some of the answers they've come to?") from even a mediocre introductory text or a chat with a TA/tutor, than by assuming that this…

It's hard to get that deep in a couple paragraphs. But there is a longer version here: http://paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

Do you believe that most of the stuff covered under philosophy of mind (Dennett, Searle, Block, Chalmers, Jackson, etc.) is not worth studying?

Edit: reduce strength of statement.

Re: PG's Rarely Asked Questions

#139
post #137
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even omissions should cause sentences in the essay to be false though. Is there really not one sentence you believe is false? (Also, would you mind being civil? I'm doing it; you can too.)

Hmm, I know I'll get downvoted for this, but I don't think he's being uncivil, pg. He made an accusation against you, but he didn't do it in an uncivil manner. Asking him to be civil strikes me as weird, and possibly that you're being too defensive?

PakG1, you have a good point. Accusing someone of "selectively ignoring" evidence is suggesting the person is not seeking truth at all. In civil discourse, one owes a response. In uncivil discourse, then the opponent often isn't asking a real question and the answer doesn't need to take it seriously. I think PG was taking onan_barbarian's comment seriously and asking a sincere question.

Re: PG's Rarely Asked Questions

#140
post #137
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even omissions should cause sentences in the essay to be false though. Is there really not one sentence you believe is false? (Also, would you mind being civil? I'm doing it; you can too.)

Hmm, I know I'll get downvoted for this, but I don't think he's being uncivil, pg. He made an accusation against you, but he didn't do it in an uncivil manner. Asking him to be civil strikes me as weird, and possibly that you're being too defensive?

I do not suppose it to be possible to accuse anyone of anything in a civil manner. Accusation belongs to prosecutors, mothers in law, schoolteachers and other beings that are clearly on a higher plane than one.

Civility is a difficult, but simple, art, necessitating primarily that one should wish to get along with another: onan does not seem to be going out of his to make himself agreeable to pg or anyone else in this exchange.

Post reply on HN