4 ms·

It's interesting to imagine what Djikstra would've accomplished if he instead decided to focus on theoretical physics. Conversely, imagine what we would've lost

It's interesting to imagine what Djikstra would've accomplished if he instead decided to focus on theoretical physics. Conversely, imagine what we would've lost if we didn't have Djikstra as a programmer. I'd like to point out that Dijkstra's writing might arguably the best writing I've seen from a programmer. English is not my first language and his writing is inspiring; if possible I'd like to request if anyone can point me to a resource (apps, software, etc) so I can learn to write, speak, and converse like Dijkstra in this lecture?

f_allwein 10y ago
For writing, The Elements of Style by Strunk/ White is a classic I still found useful. Plus, as has been said, read a lot of good prose. Similarly for public speaking, practice makes perfect. Check out Toastmasters International - a nonprofit that is running clubs all over the world where members can improve their public speaking skills in a supportive environment. Worked for me. http://www.toastmasters.org http://www.toastmasters.org
- kevindeasis 10y ago
  Fascinating, I wasn't even aware there were lots of toastmaster clubs in my city. Thanks for the heads up, I'll check them out!
  - f_allwein 10y ago
    Yes, they're a bit of an open secret in that many people who would love them never even hear about them.
stdbrouw 10y ago
> if possible I'd like to request if anyone can point me to a resource (apps, software, etc) so I can learn to write, speak, and converse like Dijkstra in this lecture? Practice makes perfect, that's really all there is to it. A good book on writing style can help, but only if you use it. The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker and Revising Prose by Richard Lanham are my two favorites.
- kevindeasis 10y ago
  Thanks! I'll start checking out the book
hga 10y ago
I suppose, but unless he felt a true calling to become a theoretical physicist, as is partly outlined in this piece, his decision was clearly right, for the previous golden age of physics was well over by late '50s, and progress since then has been minimal compared to the Thirty Years that Shook Physics (quantum theory: https://www.amazon.com/Thirty-Years-that-Shook-Physics/dp/048624895X https://www.amazon.com/Thirty-Years-that-Shook-Physics/dp/04...), General Relatively (still our best theory of gravity), and the revelations of the secrets of the nucleus. Maybe also Feynman and company's development of the first quantum field theory. There were of course a lot of things of smaller scope to be done, and the unification of EM and the weak nuclear force was in the future, as well as the imperfect Standard Model that adds the strong nuclear force, and we still haven't unified gravity and the other three fundamental forces, but programming was wide open, and what you could do was rapidly improving as the machines were rapidly becoming faster and bigger. ADDED: For example, the Electrologica X1 he did his Ph.D. thesis on was solid state, as in completely transistorized (no vacuum tubes) and had magnetic core memory, both major advances in the '50s. Heck, my calling was science, and I was strongly on that track as of 1968, but computers nonetheless gained a lot of my attention starting in the mid-late '70s, as they did for Feynman starting with the Manhattan Project when "computers" were the operators of 10 digit electromechanical scientific calculators.
jwdunne 10y ago
Similar to the baseline advice to learn programming: write a lot. Read good writing, read bad writing and learn to tell the difference. Leaving a piece of writing for 24 hours and coming back to it with a fresh pair of eyes to edit helps. Someone else's eyes also helps, similar to how code reviews help. Reciting your writing out loud helps too. If it isn't in the desired tone and/or it doesn't sound natural, rewrite it. You may find you need less adverbs than you think. Books on writing style and techniques help in the way books about algorithms, paradigms, design patterns and other facets of programming help. The key is to implement the ideas you learn in your writing.
jonahx 10y ago
If you want to write specifically like that, read Bronte, Austen, and other 19th century authors. It's a more verbose, grammatically complex style of prose that's not in vogue anymore. When it's done well, I personally enjoy it, but if your aspiration is to emulate that style you should be warned that to the ear of most modern English speakers it rings overly formal, if not pompous.
- kevindeasis 10y ago
  Thanks, what you've said resonates well after @gizmo's second paragraph.
gizmo 10y ago
Dijkstra writes directly and with and air of authority, but his writing is not great. His style is pretentious and obfuscatory. Even worse, he uses his authoritative style to get away with tons of unsubstantiated assertions. Let's look at a passage from the linked lecture: Those who want really reliable software will discover [authority!] that they must find means of avoiding the majority of bugs to start with [unsubstantiated!], and as a result the programming process will become cheaper [unsubstantiated!]. If you want more effective programmers, you will discover [authority!] that they should not waste their time debugging [repeated assertion!], they should not introduce the bugs to start with [repeated assertion!]. He could just say: When creating reliable software debugging takes up much time. If we develop techniques that prevent these bugs from being introduced in the first place then programmers will become much more effective. Good writing is terse and easy to understand. It should lead the reader from the premises to the conclusions. Good writing shouldn't contain pretentious detours. I don't think you should emulate Dijkstra.
- tel 10y ago
  I doubt Djikstra would have been Djikstra is he communicated in such a sterile way. His writing achieved the ends he sought. He's memorable and endlessly quoted which gives life to his ideas beyond what is immediately provable. You might argue this is improper, but I think that's a bit morose. I dread the day when all people write like that second sentence. That's not to say someone should emulate him, though. It's not that it's wrong, it's that they're bound to fail and produce something tinny and derivative. That's the thing your revised sentence has going for it: it's as cheap as it is limp.
  - gizmo 10y ago
    That's the thing with blowhards. When you take away their rhetoric and literary flourishes they've got nothing left. If something becomes boring and derivative when stated plainly then there was nothing of substance to start with.
- kevindeasis 10y ago
  Thanks! Your statement gives me good insight and I find it helpful, and it seems to complement @jonahx's comments.

f_allwein 10y ago

For writing, The Elements of Style by Strunk/ White is a classic I still found useful. Plus, as has been said, read a lot of good prose. Similarly for public speaking, practice makes perfect. Check out Toastmasters International - a nonprofit that is running clubs all over the world where members can improve their public speaking skills in a supportive environment. Worked for me. http://www.toastmasters.org http://www.toastmasters.org

kevindeasis 10y ago
Fascinating, I wasn't even aware there were lots of toastmaster clubs in my city. Thanks for the heads up, I'll check them out!
- f_allwein 10y ago
  Yes, they're a bit of an open secret in that many people who would love them never even hear about them.

stdbrouw 10y ago

> if possible I'd like to request if anyone can point me to a resource (apps, software, etc) so I can learn to write, speak, and converse like Dijkstra in this lecture? Practice makes perfect, that's really all there is to it. A good book on writing style can help, but only if you use it. The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker and Revising Prose by Richard Lanham are my two favorites.

kevindeasis 10y ago
Thanks! I'll start checking out the book

hga 10y ago

I suppose, but unless he felt a true calling to become a theoretical physicist, as is partly outlined in this piece, his decision was clearly right, for the previous golden age of physics was well over by late '50s, and progress since then has been minimal compared to the Thirty Years that Shook Physics (quantum theory: https://www.amazon.com/Thirty-Years-that-Shook-Physics/dp/048624895X https://www.amazon.com/Thirty-Years-that-Shook-Physics/dp/04...), General Relatively (still our best theory of gravity), and the revelations of the secrets of the nucleus. Maybe also Feynman and company's development of the first quantum field theory. There were of course a lot of things of smaller scope to be done, and the unification of EM and the weak nuclear force was in the future, as well as the imperfect Standard Model that adds the strong nuclear force, and we still haven't unified gravity and the other three fundamental forces, but programming was wide open, and what you could do was rapidly improving as the machines were rapidly becoming faster and bigger. ADDED: For example, the Electrologica X1 he did his Ph.D. thesis on was solid state, as in completely transistorized (no vacuum tubes) and had magnetic core memory, both major advances in the '50s. Heck, my calling was science, and I was strongly on that track as of 1968, but computers nonetheless gained a lot of my attention starting in the mid-late '70s, as they did for Feynman starting with the Manhattan Project when "computers" were the operators of 10 digit electromechanical scientific calculators.

jwdunne 10y ago

Similar to the baseline advice to learn programming: write a lot. Read good writing, read bad writing and learn to tell the difference. Leaving a piece of writing for 24 hours and coming back to it with a fresh pair of eyes to edit helps. Someone else's eyes also helps, similar to how code reviews help. Reciting your writing out loud helps too. If it isn't in the desired tone and/or it doesn't sound natural, rewrite it. You may find you need less adverbs than you think. Books on writing style and techniques help in the way books about algorithms, paradigms, design patterns and other facets of programming help. The key is to implement the ideas you learn in your writing.

jonahx 10y ago

If you want to write specifically like that, read Bronte, Austen, and other 19th century authors. It's a more verbose, grammatically complex style of prose that's not in vogue anymore. When it's done well, I personally enjoy it, but if your aspiration is to emulate that style you should be warned that to the ear of most modern English speakers it rings overly formal, if not pompous.

kevindeasis 10y ago
Thanks, what you've said resonates well after @gizmo's second paragraph.

gizmo 10y ago

Dijkstra writes directly and with and air of authority, but his writing is not great. His style is pretentious and obfuscatory. Even worse, he uses his authoritative style to get away with tons of unsubstantiated assertions. Let's look at a passage from the linked lecture: Those who want really reliable software will discover [authority!] that they must find means of avoiding the majority of bugs to start with [unsubstantiated!], and as a result the programming process will become cheaper [unsubstantiated!]. If you want more effective programmers, you will discover [authority!] that they should not waste their time debugging [repeated assertion!], they should not introduce the bugs to start with [repeated assertion!]. He could just say: When creating reliable software debugging takes up much time. If we develop techniques that prevent these bugs from being introduced in the first place then programmers will become much more effective. Good writing is terse and easy to understand. It should lead the reader from the premises to the conclusions. Good writing shouldn't contain pretentious detours. I don't think you should emulate Dijkstra.

tel 10y ago
I doubt Djikstra would have been Djikstra is he communicated in such a sterile way. His writing achieved the ends he sought. He's memorable and endlessly quoted which gives life to his ideas beyond what is immediately provable. You might argue this is improper, but I think that's a bit morose. I dread the day when all people write like that second sentence. That's not to say someone should emulate him, though. It's not that it's wrong, it's that they're bound to fail and produce something tinny and derivative. That's the thing your revised sentence has going for it: it's as cheap as it is limp.
- gizmo 10y ago
  That's the thing with blowhards. When you take away their rhetoric and literary flourishes they've got nothing left. If something becomes boring and derivative when stated plainly then there was nothing of substance to start with.
kevindeasis 10y ago
Thanks! Your statement gives me good insight and I find it helpful, and it seems to complement @jonahx's comments.