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

The Unix Philosophy

catb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 269 posts

Re: The Unix Philosophy

#131

Post by mseepgood »

vmsisbetter wrote: post #27
jokoon wrote: post #13

This should be taught in any programming class. > Rule of Diversity: Distrust all claims for “one true way”. Although, does the python rule "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." contradict this one ? > Rule 5. Data dominates. If you've chosen the right data structures and organized things well, the algorithms will almost always be self-evident. Data structures, not algorithms, are ce…

Rob Pike doesn't know Smalltalk, Self, or Common Lisp/CLOS--why should you care what his opinions are concerning OO as a paradigm?

He definitely knows Smalltalk and Lisp

Re: The Unix Philosophy

#132

Post by [deleted] »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #79
Haul4ss wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with this? Being completely serious here, what is wrong with citizens owning firearms? I am all about reducing gun violence, but if you want to do that you have to do something to stem the tide of illegally acquired handguns in areas of concentrated poverty. That's where a lot of your gun violence comes from. The recent happenings in Charleston are unicorns. Unpredictable and very rare events that you ca…

I'm not sure I can say there's something absolutely wrong with it, but my opinion is that citizens shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. I live somewhere (UK) where they can't, and there is very little gun violence. That's not to say, of course, there aren't problems, but I just think - on balance - the world would be better off with fewer killing machines in it.

[deleted]

Re: The Unix Philosophy

#133

Post by pjmlp »

vmsisbetter wrote: post #27
jokoon wrote: post #13

This should be taught in any programming class. > Rule of Diversity: Distrust all claims for “one true way”. Although, does the python rule "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." contradict this one ? > Rule 5. Data dominates. If you've chosen the right data structures and organized things well, the algorithms will almost always be self-evident. Data structures, not algorithms, are ce…

Rob Pike doesn't know Smalltalk, Self, or Common Lisp/CLOS--why should you care what his opinions are concerning OO as a paradigm?

Funny how HNers have such a high regard for his opinion on a domain he is well known for being sceptical and yet disregard his opinion, as UNIX co-author, that UNIX is well past its due date and is time to move on.

Re: The Unix Philosophy

#134

Post by eli_gottlieb »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #125
ageofwant wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it is interesting and of consequence. Especially as it highlights how truth ever becomes the slave of fashion. If it it is demonstrably true that race and IQ is linked then stating that as a fact does not make one a racist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fashion" in this context. Let's say that some kind of link between race and intelligence were proved and universally acknowledged, what possible positive outcome could entail?

>Let's say that some kind of link between race and intelligence were proved and universally acknowledged, what possible positive outcome could entail?

Intelligence enhancement would become a cheap, simple, universally-available gene therapy, since we would have found that it only relies on a few alleles of a tiny number of genes, so simple that it can differ significantly between ethnic groups that can still interbreed, rather than being a complex, many-gene feature that evolved chiefly among the species as a whole.

Re: The Unix Philosophy

#135

Post by ajross »

spiralpolitik wrote: post #119
ajross wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in some cases, this philosophy has resulted in the "tangled mess held together by duct tape" kind of systems architecture that no one dares to touch for fear of breaking things. Pretty much, just as Booch's philosophy has given us tangled messes of class hierarchies with cross references pointed every which way. And just as The Gang of Four gave us AbstractedTangleMessFactorySingleton. The distinction with the Unix…

The Gang of Four book recommends "composition over extension" which fits neatly into the UNIX philosophy of building things by composed of smaller independent programs. The main issue that most of the common programming languages in use notably Java and C++ have very poor support for composition thus forcing developers to have to extend things.

That's true as far as it goes, but you can write beautiful code in most languages too, even Java. The point I was making is just that "able to write bad code" is a poor metric for a philosophy. And also that "bad unix-style pipe hackery with script glue" has the advantage of actually working more often than bad code produced by other disciplines.

Re: The Unix Philosophy

#136

Post by amyjess »

logicchains wrote: post #81
jokoon wrote: post #13

This should be taught in any programming class. > Rule of Diversity: Distrust all claims for “one true way”. Although, does the python rule "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." contradict this one ? > Rule 5. Data dominates. If you've chosen the right data structures and organized things well, the algorithms will almost always be self-evident. Data structures, not algorithms, are ce…

>I wonder what rob pike has to say about OOP or java, I wish I could listen to it. “object-oriented design is the roman numerals of computing.” - Rob Pike ( http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/ ) Some other gems from that page: “Object-oriented programming is an exceptionally bad idea which could only have originated in California.” – Edsger Dijkstra “The phrase "object-oriented” means a lot of things. H…

> “object-oriented design is the roman numerals of computing.” - Rob Pike

Which is weird because Pike's Rule 4 is one of the fundamental principles of OO design.

Re: The Unix Philosophy

#137

Post by dredmorbius »

peteretep wrote: post #86
twoodfin wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ESR's views particularly on guns, libertarian economics and politics, and AGW, all present pretty standard cases of assuming a frame and fitting all data to that frame. Chopping, discarding, and/or fabricating data as necessary to do so. That actually directly calls into question engineering validity, as solid engineering is solidly based in reality and a realistic interpretation of facts. Also the ability to discard…

> This is just a dressed up ad hominem No, it's explicitly and purposefully ad-hominem, suggesting that a person's lack of judgement in one area leads to questions about his judgement in a related one.

Actually, it's not ad hominem at all.

Ad homimen would be "people named Eric cannot be trusted".

This is calling into question ESR's general credibility, based on his record. That's a character judgement.

I'm also not saying ESR is wrong in all things -- a consistently wrong indicator is useful (read the opposite of what it says). An inconsistently wrong one is maddening: you've got to pay close attention to what its doing and determine the pattern to its errors. That's the taxing part.

Re: The Unix Philosophy

#138

Post by dredmorbius »

twoodfin wrote: post #111
peteretep wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is just a dressed up ad hominem No, it's explicitly and purposefully ad-hominem, suggesting that a person's lack of judgement in one area leads to questions about his judgement in a related one.

Many (most) people, including many highly respected scientists and engineers, are fully capable of displaying incredible judgment in their discipline yet awful judgment in other aspects of their lives. Should we put an asterisk on papers published by researchers in the middle of messy divorces?

There are some flagrant examples. Peter Duesberg, the UC Berkely molecular biologist prof who thinks that the HIV/AIDS link is bogus, comes to mind.

There are also those who tend to know their limits and note when they're out of their depth or area(s) of expertise. So no, that's not a universal guide either.

Re: The Unix Philosophy

#139

Post by phlakaton »

dredmorbius wrote: post #47
TeMPOraL wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these seem even remotely relevant to engineering. Moreover, research, discovery and innovation requires letting people having freedom to think. That includes holding unpopular, controversial or politically incorrect opinions. We are so worried about Evil Government dictating what we can and cannot think that we haven't noticed the current organic trend to prosecute every other person for thoughtcrimes. It's n…

ESR's views particularly on guns, libertarian economics and politics, and AGW, all present pretty standard cases of assuming a frame and fitting all data to that frame. Chopping, discarding, and/or fabricating data as necessary to do so. That actually directly calls into question engineering validity, as solid engineering is solidly based in reality and a realistic interpretation of facts. Also the ability to discard…

You say you distrust the author's views and opinions because of his politics.

I say: good! You should never take an author's work at face value. Every bit of nonfiction you read should be read critically. Nobody's judgment is infallible – not even Nobel prizewinners.

Re: The Unix Philosophy

#140

Post by dredmorbius »

twoodfin wrote: post #107
dredmorbius wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...but his positions... His making up shit (or buying in to others' made-up shit) to justify them does, as does his ignoring contradictory evidence and record.. Which questions about what work? The problem is one of an unreliable narrator. If you cannot trust someone's judgement, and they spew crap, repeatedly, then the odds that they're blowing smoke elsewhere increase. It's the same reason that lawyers seek to impu…

I can't help but notice you managed to write something approximating the length of a short essay without once pointing out any "bullshit" in ESR's technical writing, let alone explaining how said "bullshit" must derive from his wrongthink.

I'm afraid I must apologize for failing to make myself clear: it's that his practices call into question his statements in other areas.

I have to confess that I don't have specific instances at hand, for two reasons. One is that much of his more technical writing on programming is outside my own area of expertise. The other is that, given his tendencies, I largely ignore him.

My point, however, wasn't where he is specifically mistaken, but why the traits he exhibits in his rantings on other topics do have a bearing on his engineering judgement.

I do hope that's clear now.

Post reply on HN