Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)

#31

Post by kayodelycaon » Fri, Jul 07, 2023, 3:54 PM UTC

masto wrote: post #8

Would anyone be willing to explain this? Who is "us", what is a PCL, what is a spool, what are these random words? Is this supposed to be a puzzle?

From: https://github.com/steveklabnik/CLOSURE/issues/3

--

vi commented on Sep 30, 2015

What is CLOSURE.PDF? Readme is not helpful. I don't even understand is it a scientific paper, a book, a program or a game. My first thought was "Fed up! I'm closing! Here is my closure manifesto."

Along with Thanks, _why. there should be answer to What is CLOSURE? question in repository description.

--

mikehenrty commented on Aug 13, 2016

I think the problem is that nobody except for _why and perhaps a few people close to him know the context of this material. It just showed up on his blog one day after years of online radio silence. These hacker news posts show some of the confusion and excitement from that time:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5015087

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5571387

Note that the link from Hacker News, _why's original blog, is now operated by some Australian guy with no apparent relation to _why.

Re: Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)

#32

Post by akkartik » Fri, Jul 07, 2023, 3:56 PM UTC

Page 17 mentions a link and then goes off on a poignant meditation about its likelihood of breaking:

"It feels like I may have just gone ahead and ruined what I am by [dumping this link]. Has all of this writing lost its timelessness, to have this relic here? But maybe this link will never break, maybe it will stay there for all time. Maybe it's me. I'm a relic which is already out of his time in the present age."

The link is now broken. You weren't the relic, _why.

Re: Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)

#33

Post by thom » Fri, Jul 07, 2023, 3:56 PM UTC

ornornor wrote: post #10

maxfurman wrote: post #4

I'll take this opportunity to link to Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby - https://poignant.guide - one of the most unique and inspiring programming language tutorials you'll ever read.

I never got it. Everyone says it’s fantastic, I feel like an idiot for absolutely not getting it at all when it came out and still not today.

It was very much of a time and place, and obviously people are welcome to take or leave it. I certainly cringe that every language now seems to need its own twee, jokey, book-long tutorial, like Learn You a Haskell for Great Good and Clojure for the Brave and True. But Why’s (Poignant) Guide captured the playfulness and nostalgia for lost time that the Ruby community evoked for a lot of people back then, especially those that had grown up with computers but drifted into enterprise software and watched the joy of technology slowly seep out of their lives. Whether it's a good way to learn Ruby the language, I don't really remember.

Re: Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)

#34

Post by preseinger » Fri, Jul 07, 2023, 4:15 PM UTC

ornornor wrote: post #10

maxfurman wrote: post #4

I'll take this opportunity to link to Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby - https://poignant.guide - one of the most unique and inspiring programming language tutorials you'll ever read.

I never got it. Everyone says it’s fantastic, I feel like an idiot for absolutely not getting it at all when it came out and still not today.

it characterizes programming in a way that is basically incoherent to most stereotypical programmers

(i agree with you, for the record, it was gobbledegook to me too)

the question is: does programming represent some kind of subjective expression, or some kind of objective precision? why's little zine says it's the former, but that's not how i see it at all

programming is, for me, like working on math problems, or balancing equations, it's strict and pure and precise, and that's what i love about it, there's no connection to anything like art, or writing (in the novel sense), or other kinds of subjective expression

but for some people, programming is like art, or writing a novel, or in any case a subjective expression of some abstract idea (or ideas) that they have

at least this is what i see as the discrepancy

Re: Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)

#35

Post by Cerium » Fri, Jul 07, 2023, 4:17 PM UTC

marginalia_nu wrote: post #24

anyfoo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't learn a programming language like that, unless it already has very similar paradigms to languages you already know. For example, try to learn APL[1] or Haskell like that (or just assembly if you haven't done any kind of assembly yet). [1] And that's not just because of the arcane symbols.

I think assembly is probably the one language family you'd find most success learning from a reference sheet.

Yeah, sure - as long as that reference sheet is the CPU reference manual.

Re: Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)

#36

Post by rahoulb » Fri, Jul 07, 2023, 4:19 PM UTC

preseinger wrote: post #34

ornornor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never got it. Everyone says it’s fantastic, I feel like an idiot for absolutely not getting it at all when it came out and still not today.

it characterizes programming in a way that is basically incoherent to most stereotypical programmers (i agree with you, for the record, it was gobbledegook to me too) the question is: does programming represent some kind of subjective expression, or some kind of objective precision? why's little zine says it's the former, but that's not how i see it at all programming is, for me, like working on math problems, or bal…

I always said "Python is like writing maths, ruby is like writing english"

Re: Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)

#37

Post by cobaltoxide » Fri, Jul 07, 2023, 4:25 PM UTC

What is this?

Re: Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)

#38

Post by mjw1007 » Fri, Jul 07, 2023, 4:32 PM UTC

thom wrote: post #33

ornornor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never got it. Everyone says it’s fantastic, I feel like an idiot for absolutely not getting it at all when it came out and still not today.

It was very much of a time and place, and obviously people are welcome to take or leave it. I certainly cringe that every language now seems to need its own twee, jokey, book-long tutorial, like Learn You a Haskell for Great Good and Clojure for the Brave and True. But Why’s (Poignant) Guide captured the playfulness and nostalgia for lost time that the Ruby community evoked for a lot of people back then, especially t…

I don't think the jokey book-long tutorial is a new phenomenon.

I learned Fortran in the 80s from the Fortran Coloring Book.

Re: Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)

#39

Post by booleandilemma » Fri, Jul 07, 2023, 4:32 PM UTC

preseinger wrote: post #34

ornornor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never got it. Everyone says it’s fantastic, I feel like an idiot for absolutely not getting it at all when it came out and still not today.

it characterizes programming in a way that is basically incoherent to most stereotypical programmers (i agree with you, for the record, it was gobbledegook to me too) the question is: does programming represent some kind of subjective expression, or some kind of objective precision? why's little zine says it's the former, but that's not how i see it at all programming is, for me, like working on math problems, or bal…

There's a reason one of the most famous computer scientists and programmers titled his series of books "The Art of Computer Programming".

Re: Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)

#40

Post by preseinger » Fri, Jul 07, 2023, 4:38 PM UTC

rahoulb wrote: post #36

preseinger wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it characterizes programming in a way that is basically incoherent to most stereotypical programmers (i agree with you, for the record, it was gobbledegook to me too) the question is: does programming represent some kind of subjective expression, or some kind of objective precision? why's little zine says it's the former, but that's not how i see it at all programming is, for me, like working on math problems, or bal…

I always said "Python is like writing maths, ruby is like writing english"

right! and, to build on that: people who see programming as maths understand it fundamentally differently than those who see it as prose, they approach every aspect of programming differently, evaluate "quality" on entirely different metrics, etc.

in my experience, this is a major source of friction in programming teams, and deserves to be addressed more directly -- if i had it my way, i'd prefer that those who see programming as prose would be disabused of this incorrect notion, but i understand that this is my bias speaking, and not any objective truth :)