Live data from Hacker News

Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)

github.com

91–100 of 149 posts

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

#91
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, internet of weirdos that feels separate from the real world is on private discords now. I pluck people from various semi-public communities that seem cool and build cool private communities.

There is a huge difference between pockets of weirdos sharing giphy memes in walled gardens using tools provided by a corporation and what felt like practically the entire internet being comprised of, built for and used by absolute weirdos.

Fair enough. It just became too much of a risk to put your full private self out there on the internet unless you're a special kind of DGAF, I think.

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

#92
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

As both a writer and someone who has a degree in math, I see the segregation of prose and mathematics into fundamentally different categories as arbitrary, perhaps even incorrect. I see an artistic element to mathematics, just as much as I see a mechanical element to prose. The mechanics of the thing tell us what we can do, the art of it tells us what we want to do. Perhaps even _why we do it.

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

#93
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must have been awful when you were forced to engage with a whimsical community like that. I mean...I'm assuming you were forced, because why else would you harbor so much bitterness over the fact that there were once some people who did things differently than you would have liked?

Come now. Surely you can find something to criticize in what I've actually said, without needing to resort to footless inference about my person.

My main criticism is just that your whole point comes down to "they did things in a way I didn't like!"

So what? They had different personalities or different goals. When I found _why's guide back in 2004 or whatever, at a boring job that involved a lot of sitting around, I learned Ruby as a side effect of poking through this odd little text. That introduced me to concepts I hadn't come across at school learning Java and C, and ended up nudging me into a different direction, so that by the next year I was writing my class projects in Lisp when I could.

If I'd instead come across a sober-minded manual documenting a proper "serious" programming language, I'd have skipped it. That would have sucked. I enjoyed programming a lot more in my own post-_why timeline, even though I agree in retrospect that Ruby isn't a great programming language for serious projects and the twee-ness of the guide itself was a bit grating (to me) at times.

Criticism is easy and mostly useless. There's so much criticism on the internet, seemingly because it makes people feel superior, and I find it exhausting. Just don't use the thing.

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

#94
post #51
post #11

Worth reading through for a chuckle. Don't deprive yourself. Why_ had a type of character we can easily forget used to exist, in this modern world where everyone is either slammed through cookie-cutters to become over-socialized slimy corporate people or medicated into a zombie-like state of partial existence.

"Everyone"!

Some human beings may still roam free, but we try to keep a low profile :)

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

#96
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must have been awful when you were forced to engage with a whimsical community like that. I mean...I'm assuming you were forced, because why else would you harbor so much bitterness over the fact that there were once some people who did things differently than you would have liked?

Come now. Surely you can find something to criticize in what I've actually said, without needing to resort to footless inference about my person.

Your entire argument is that you personally don't like Ruby nor the ways of the Ruby community combined with a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions. There's nothing else there. What else should they address besides 'your person'

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

#97
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come now. Surely you can find something to criticize in what I've actually said, without needing to resort to footless inference about my person.

My main criticism is just that your whole point comes down to "they did things in a way I didn't like!" So what? They had different personalities or different goals. When I found _why's guide back in 2004 or whatever, at a boring job that involved a lot of sitting around, I learned Ruby as a side effect of poking through this odd little text. That introduced me to concepts I hadn't come across at school learning Java…

Any criticism boiled down far enough ends up in "they did things in a way I didn't like". It's not a meaningful response.

In this case, the criticism was in response to a perspective on these past events that is in my view overly informed by nostalgia, and while I don't make a general habit of snatching rose-colored glasses off anyone's face, in a public setting and especially in this public setting it is not unreasonable to do so.

I'm glad you found some good in the Poignant Guide. I had a similar experience with the Camel Book, a decade or so earlier, with similarly favorable outcomes - had my mom not proven amenable to being wheedled on the subject of an expensive birthday gift in which she could see no immediate value, I would likely not even be a working programmer today, to say nothing of someone able to grasp some rudiments of what may in a few more decades develop into a recognizable engineering practice. But I don't still use Perl or defend it, because beyond the most ephemeral and exploratory of contexts it is objectively godawful, and even in that context it lacks compared with tools that at least don't falsely advertise themselves as production-worthy. When people criticize it, I understand that they are criticizing it and not me.

And finally, on the point of whimsy versus professionalism - I mentioned the development of engineering practice, and that's a desirable outcome already too long in coming, because when we're trusted to build systems on which people's lives and livelihoods depend, we bear a responsibility of which a whimsical approach to the work constitutes active dereliction. Would you trust your life to a whimsical airplane, or your retirement to a whimsical advisor? Of course not! No one would, nor should they.

Other preparadigmatic engineering disciplines had the advantage of us here; a whimsically designed boiler, for example, will most likely maim or kill its perpetrator well before the bad idea gets much chance to spread, while we easily fall prey to the sorts of delusions that come from working with ideas and materials whose potential danger is much less immediately obvious. I would like us to be better at recognizing and extirpating such errors, and criticizing them where the opportunity arises seems like a decent way to advance that goal. I don't mind if you don't like it, but I would like you not to like it for better thought through reasons than these.

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

#98
post #45
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the jokey book-long tutorial is a new phenomenon. I learned Fortran in the 80s from the Fortran Coloring Book.

I now also see Comic Pascal from 1984, fair enough.

Computer Lib / Dream Machines, 1974.

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

#99
post #67

My complicated feelings is that producing it and consuming it was all very unhealthy. There is nothing mystical about a machine and it isn't curious or interested that you can make a universal machine do the logic of any conceivable machine. I feel these works did a lot to hobble people in their growth by putting too much emphasis on fantasy and not enough of actual understanding. I blame our mess of a JavaScript eco…

This take reads like you've never created anything for the intrinsic joy of creation. Not everything must be utilitarian. Art is still art even if its clumsily made or seen only by the artist. Most of us do this to feed and clothe ourselves and our families. Its easy to lose sight of the fact that we're often engaged in creative, artistic pursuits. If you were lucky enough to become enchanted by computers before you…

There are many replies to this story about how it got people into the field of programming? Art is one thing, and I'm sure it was a great feeling to create leftpad but these writings sell a mystique that doesn't exist. It has always been people and relationships. I guess I don't know how to explain how it appeared to experienced professional working developers. It was like, here have a ticket for the burnout ride.

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

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come now. Surely you can find something to criticize in what I've actually said, without needing to resort to footless inference about my person.

Your entire argument is that you personally don't like Ruby nor the ways of the Ruby community combined with a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions. There's nothing else there. What else should they address besides 'your person'

They actually did a pretty good job of elaborating a critique of my criticism in replying to the same comment you did, so I chose to continue the dialogue there.
Post reply on HN