That Time I Made A Website

We've seen posts like this done by men before. The common thread is not gender, but age and humility.

So no. You are wrong, misinformed, inflammatory, and offensive. Crawl back into the abyss from whence you came, Tentacle.

I'll bite.

The idiomatic way to create webpages, in this day and age, is to try to separate content of a page from how the browser presents it.

HTML is for the content and structure of a page. CSS is for controlling how it's displayed. The tag is an HTML tag that only exists to control how a page is displayed.

In case you're wondering what to use instead, adding 'margin: auto;' as a css rule will do the trick.

>Well .... making a website != programming.

Oh man, I remember when everyone looked down on web programmers and PHP monkeys. Hah. (I also did my much of my early programming on a trs-80, but mine was an obsolete tandy model 100 that I brought to school in the mid-90s, mostly to automate the 'guess and check' rote math homework.)

It used to be that there was a strong hierarchy. I know in the '90s and the first half of the '00s, you had the "real programmers" - the embedded and systems programmers... then the sysadmins, then your web programmers, then your web "designers" - with respect scaling in the obvious direction.

But, I think, this has shifted, especially in the HN world, where VC is very influential. The web programmers are now the 'serious programmers' - the valuable commodities, with designers also being fairly important. My people, the sysadmins are largely considered surplus population, and what you would have called 'real programmers' are now irrelevant old fogies that sometimes have interesting things to say.

(the question that looms in my mind is this: Will the construction of online CRUD apps be automated the same way that the construction of native CRUD apps were automated in the '90s? Will we have 'visual FoxPro' for the web? I mean, my stepfather, a long time user of such programs has shown me some of the rudimentary dot-net stuff... but it's not all the way there, as far as I can see, when it comes to whipping up a webapp as simply and easily as it whips up a native app.)

>This is lowering the bar on what stories are 'interesting', and - honestly - turns me off coming to HN because of the (for me) lower signal : noise ratio.

See, I've always thought of HN as a site more focused on the business side than the technical side. I mean, we do have some interesting technical articles, but ycombinator is about making money, and a lot of that is raising money. (my impression is that being young and goodlooking is an important part of raising money right now, but what do I know? I have yet to seriously attempt raising money.)

From the business perspective? learning how to, you know, use computers is pretty important and interesting.

>conversely, I don't think it's a bad thing that people who are less talented and less capable give up, and find something else they are better at and have more fun doing.

See, I kindof disagree. Sortof. in a way. You see, I think using computers is a bit like literacy. We all can't be Shakespeare, but even if you only get to 'spot is on the rug' well, you are way better off than otherwise.

Personally, I think that really basic programming should be taught in schools the way reading and writing is. Sure, most people aren't very good, but we put a hell of a lot of effort into getting folks to the 'spot is on the rug' level, and I think that most people would be better off if they, say, knew how to make a loop and an 'if' statement in basic.

I mean, certainly, most people can't be specialist programmers. But look at those CRUD app creators in the '90s, like FoxPro. Your ability to understand business processes was just as important, if not more important than your programming ability. We have the ability to make simple programming languages. We have the compute power to be able to run extremely inefficient code at reasonable speeds. Knowing just a little can help a whole lot.

I think microsoft lightswitch is the "visual foxpro" for the web of today.

I took a nontechnical friend of mine to Maker Faire in NYC a couple years ago and for the first 20 minutes or so all she could ask was "why?" As in, I know it's possible to make a robot that paints weird pictures or a flowerpot that sings or a giant, iron propane-flame-breathing dinosaur, but why would you? What purpose does it serve? Who's paying for this stuff anyway?

The answer, I think, lies at the center of the hacker mindset: there is inherent value in the experience of making things, and inextricably, the experience of learning how to make them, regardless of the value of the end product. Surely if we believe it's valuable in and of itself to eg. write a Brainfuck compiler or scrape HN for sentiment analysis or build and launch a satellite with the sole purpose of detecting gravitational waves, we must believe it's also valuable for someone to learn to program and build a project, even badly.

So with that in mind, I absolutely think accessibility is important, resume bullet points and job prospects aside; for the same reason I think art, music and woodshop should be taught in schools even though most kids won't grow up to be painters, singers or woodworkers.