Programming is forgetting because forgetting is abstraction. On the other hand, abstraction is not always about forgetting, and programming is not always about

Programming is forgetting because forgetting is abstraction. On the other hand, abstraction is not always about forgetting, and programming is not always about the real world[1]. But that's always been part of the hacker ethic I've seen, to the extent it exists at all. Really, I agreed with a lot of the criticism in the article. There are points definitely worth consideration and reflection. But it also had a couple of peculiarities I've seen again and again in discussions on such topics (whether they're criticisms of programming or some other discipline or science as a whole). It should be considered carefully—dare I say critically? The first problem is that it, by necessity, doesn't treat "the hacker ethic" with the same nuance as its own ideas. That mostly fine—a natural consequence of constrained time and space and effort—but it's a bit concerning if a core part of the argument is that the hacker ethic is insufficiently nuanced. You could say it's a response solely to Levy's book, but its conclusions try to apply to hacker culture as a whole. It's a bit like criticizing science (or scientism) based solely on Neil deGrasse Tyson's hilariously simplistic "Rationalia"[2]. The discussion is still valuable, but not nearly as broad as it tries to look. The other problem is even more classic: the criticism is relevant and natural, but the alternative solution pulled in is arbitrary and does not flow naturally from the criticism. Her suggested alternative questions pull in a lot of baggage unrelated to the shortcomings of the "hacker ethic" that just reflects her particular philosophical abstractions for understanding social systems, power and morality—abstractions that are by no means universal. For example, the focus on "labor" immediately stood out: why single out labor of all things? There is an answer to that question of course, but that's not the point: the point is that the answer to that question does not naturally emerge from the perfectly reasonable criticism in the rest of the talk. The same about most of the other things she wishes to change—or not to change—in the hacker philosophy. As an illustration, it's not hard to imagine somebody with totally different views agreeing fully with the problems outlined in the body of the talk, but coming up with a totally different replacement for the "hacker ethic". Think about a hardcore utilitarian, or somebody with a strongly individualistic bent or a full-on anarchist or whatever else. Or perhaps just imagine the smallest change needed to address the problems of Levy's hacker ethic while keeping the "hacker spirit" however you see it. All those could come up with exactly the same problems in the fist part of the talk, but end up with totally different conclusions. My point, ultimately, is not to address those conclusions in particular. Rather, I just want to point out the disconnect: it's perfectly possible to agree with the setup without admitting anything about the proposed alternatives. Just like it's possible to admit to shortcomings in science without going full-on postmodern about it :). footnotes [1]: I say this coming from a particular perspective where the real world is, if anything, an enemy—perhaps you could call it programming language idealism :). [2]: It's an idealized government based solely on reason and empiricism which is hilariously unrealistic: https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/reflections-on-rationalia/10154399608556613/ https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/reflectio...