It was a sad day when _why left programming. I always thought he was one of the most creative people currently working in any medium, and we were lucky to have him choose code to express his ideas. Does anyone have any idea what he's been doing since?
> I always thought he was one of the most creative people currently working in any medium, You live a sheltered life. A few million creative artists would probably disagree without you, some violently so. Yes, it was nice to have him around, no, he's not that special. Have a look at Alan Kay for an example of someone who is special.
_why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius
61–70 of 183 posts
Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Radically disagree with you there. Wiring is in principle really simple - make sure the right wires are connected, insulated properly with appropriate safeguards; accounting is similar, where there are essentially only four kinds of things. Putting together a large piece of software, or optimizing a particular path in a large codebase, or putting together a creative solution to a class of problems, requires a much hi…
Programming is in principle really simple - make sure the right lines of code are used, follow each other and are debugged properly. Sure, putting together a large piece of software is hard, but then again, putting together the electrical system for a nuclear plant or something on that order of complexity is just as hard, if not harder (no 'undo' switch on that one). There has to be a way to see that programming is r…
Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius
#63Articles about _why on HN seem to always take on a particularly sycophantic quality. As a non-fan of Ruby, his contributions to programming outside of that community seem minimal. The ethic that people appear to ascribe to him ("programming as art") is precisely the opposite to that which I generally advocate ("programming as science"). I (and others) often suggest that the former approach is actually harmful to soft…
I think dismissing "programming as art" as irrelevant and hurtful to the community is dangerous. Here we have the tools to create a near-infinite amount of almost everything that can run on a computer. We use code to run complicated robots that can drive a course without human input, solve the most complicated mathematic problems of today, and create artificial intelligence with the ability to learn as it ages. Yet a…
Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius
#64Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I always thought he was one of the most creative people currently working in any medium, You live a sheltered life. A few million creative artists would probably disagree without you, some violently so. Yes, it was nice to have him around, no, he's not that special. Have a look at Alan Kay for an example of someone who is special.
Slagging someone who approached computing the way Alan Kay has tirelessly advocated for his whole career by pointing out how short he falls of Alan Kay seems a little, uh, un-Alan-Kay-like.
I just think that there are plenty of people that have done a lot more for programming in general than _Why (or however you spell it 'properly'), and that to exaggerate like this is not helping at all.
Plenty of people are busy today doing very interesting stuff, let's go and talk about that instead of endless pouring over the ashes of one very briefly very productive programmer, artist if you wish.
He choose to limit his contribution, I have heard more about _why and how fantastic his works are since he quit than I ever did before.
Too much fandom, which in turn actually does _why a disservice because it turns off those that would otherwise still be open minded.
edit: it is precisely because of the similarity in goal that I mentioned Alan Kay by the way, and I think Alan Kay has gone about it in a lot more structural fashion that _why, he's also still at it instead of taking his toys home because people won't play his way.
Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
See what I mean?
No, I really don't. I'm suggesting that self-importance is a negative trait for programmers to hold. To me, cat pictures and silly songs are actually just another form of pretentious self-importance.
Or they're a form of art. Out of one side of your mouth you say people should do things besides programming for fun, then when they do you call it self-important.
Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Programming is in principle really simple - make sure the right lines of code are used, follow each other and are debugged properly. Sure, putting together a large piece of software is hard, but then again, putting together the electrical system for a nuclear plant or something on that order of complexity is just as hard, if not harder (no 'undo' switch on that one). There has to be a way to see that programming is r…
I saw a few years ago a study which claimed professional programmers had the second or third highest average IQs of any occupation. Probably depends on how you measure, but you get my point. After 10 years of programming, it's only gotten marginally easier. The fundamental stuff of programming, solving highly complex and abstract problems, never seems to go away. Somehow I doubt bricklayers can say the same.
But for the most part I think that a very large amount of it is very comparable to bricklaying. Especially in the part where most people in the IT world make their money, such as software for the financial and the business world.
Rarely does it elevate itself to the level of watchmaking and even rarer do you find art. It does happen though, but not often.
I'm sure that programming is conceptually different from bricklaying in a sense that we are solving puzzles, sometimes. But everybody that got in to it for that reason knows that the only time you really need that skill is when you've messed up and you are facing a very tough bug.
Once you get better at programming it is more like knitting or weaving than puzzling.
Of course there are different styles of programming, and there are only so many kinds of brick. But programming for the most part is hard because we have chosen to make it hard. If bricklayers had to create each and every brick from clay and bits of stone then you'd be much closer to what programmers do for a living than what bricklayers do.
Bricklaying has been 'industrialized', and one day programming will be too. It will probably still be marginally harder than bricklaying, even after that has happened. But if you can explain what you want done and in which order then you are essentially programming.
People often say they would like to learn how to program but they are not smart enough for it. And plenty of programmers just love that because it makes them appear special.
But I think anybody can program, the difference is not some binary switch in your head 'programmer/non-programmer'. The difference is in how complex an arrangement you can create, and that's a continuum.
Some programmers are better at this than others and can solve more complex problems.
Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius
#68Articles about _why on HN seem to always take on a particularly sycophantic quality. As a non-fan of Ruby, his contributions to programming outside of that community seem minimal. The ethic that people appear to ascribe to him ("programming as art") is precisely the opposite to that which I generally advocate ("programming as science"). I (and others) often suggest that the former approach is actually harmful to soft…
Re: _why: A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius
#69When you don’t create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. Your tastes only narrow and exclude people. so create.
— Why the Lucky Stiff