20 ms·

Yo. I would suggest that as an admitted non-fan of Ruby then you are in no position to comment. Besides, _why could draw, anyone could appreciate his stuff I'd

Yo. I would suggest that as an admitted non-fan of Ruby then you are in no position to comment. Besides, _why could draw, anyone could appreciate his stuff I'd imagine. He could play music. He had a quirky sense of humour, and was a creative and endlessly surprising person. Now, this ain't sycophantic as you call, he genuinely was these things. Sorry if that bothers you. There's this cute paper some guy once wrote, it's called "The Art of the Interpreter ...", geez I guess he'll have to change it to "The science of the Interpreter ..." - good thing you fixed that for him. As the article says, what you can take from _why is to bring a sense of aesthetic to _any_ thing you approach, be it a boring powerpoint presentation or a blog or whatever. Didn't your Mommy ever tell you, "If you ain't got something nice to say, maybe you should bite that tongue of yours".

compay 17y ago
"I would suggest that as an admitted non-fan of Ruby then you are in no position to comment." I like _why too, but but by telling gdp shut up because he's not a "fan," you're actually making it much easier for him to make his point.
- igravious 17y ago
  Point taken. That was my second attempt. (The first was far less civil.) I am still of the opinion that gdp's comment was far more mean-spirited than my rejoinder. Or if not mean-spirited then lacking in imagination or possessing a real disconnect about what motivates people. But ok, point taken - my bad, I retract that part of my comment.
X-Istence 17y ago
Why are people who are not fans of Ruby not allowed to comment on how _why, arguably someone that made an impression in the programming world, has influenced their little corner of the world? _why has done absolutely nothing for me either, I cannot stand Ruby, and its community, I don't understand why all the reverence for this single man. Yes, I know of _why's work, and yes seeing other people use his old nickname makes me feel sad since they won't ever really appreciate the ideas, and projects he put out into the world, but why are we still writing about him? There are many other people that have contributed greatly to advancing of computer science as a whole that contributed to more than just one programming language that have changed the field of computer science as it was once known. Those people are the people we should be writing about, not someone who like a coward decided to up and quit. _why reminds me of my younger brother, and even partly of myself back when I was a kid, if monopoly or some other board game was not going my way, the board would go flying and so would all the pieces, and it would no longer exists. _why removing all of his content, not passing it along to the next group of people, not even leaving a backup in place thereby causing others to scramble to find the latest up-to-date versions from local disks is very much like that game of monopoly where I am losing, and it is a cowards move.
- igravious 17y ago
  Hi there. You are absolutely right X-Istence. I wrote that in the heat of the moment, as they say. I have already retracted the blanket edict in my reply to compay. Consider it doubly-retracted. Of course, I respect everyone's right to express their opinion. What I'm getting here from _why's detractors is that your animosity towards _why is bound up with your animosity towards Ruby. I have never understood language wars. Each language brings something different to the party. I learn different languages just for the fun of it. We can be competitive and cheerlead our own corner but it's tedious when people start spewing bile. I don't think you can project your childhood emotions onto _why's pulling of his online presence. We can only guess at why he did what he did. He disappearance and removing of the code and so forth that he was in control of does pose interesting questions in this age where source-code is shared and diaries are public. If it's important enough people will have copies and keep a hold of the bits they like. I can see how it would annoy somebody to feel like something of worth could be removed from the world so easily but maybe we'll have to get used to that. You could argue that _why had a social responsibility to not do what he did but surely we must allow him some personal autonomy as well. For my part I'll try to understand your perspective but could you also try to appreciate mine? Thanks!
gdp 17y ago
Allow me to quote a randomly-chosen comment from this thread: > _why's influence isn't only in code, but in thinking. And if you look around, for example on github, you will see a lot of people hacking away for fun, trying out new stuff and just doing something they love to do. Did _why start this trend? He didn't, but he was a big advocate of it. Yes, that's right, this person appears to be seriously suggesting that _why could have been responsible for people hacking for fun (in the "I'm not saying that...", right after saying it kinda way). > I'd argue his unique way of thinking has also pushed the boundaries of programming as a science in the way that calculus changed people's ways of thinking about math and physics. As influential on programming as calculus was on maths and physics? Really? _why is on equal footing with Newton and Leibniz now? > As for his strange charisma, I would say _why is to programming as Ramanujan was to mathematics. This one suggests that _why is to programming as a Fellow of the Royal Society was to mathematics! Awesome! > I always thought he was one of the most creative people currently working in any medium, Yep. That one pretty much speaks for itself. I mean, the _title_ of the article is "A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius". Need I go on? I believe my use of the word "sycophantic" was justified and I stand by it. Genuine praise for someone's achievements is completely justified and should be given freely. This is not genuine praise. It appears to be a pissing contest between different people trying to find the most absurd hyperbole with which to describe the effect that _why had on them, the Ruby community, the programming world and the entire universe and all matter contained within it.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I think in large part all of this is fueled by loss and grief, wondering what might have been, or maybe trying to lay blame as to why '_why' left. Most of it is really over the top, and you have to wonder how the non-ruby programmers get by, without access to _why's genius or his contribution to thinking in general. _why was just some guy, he had a nice run at it, decided that it wasn't for him in the long term and proceeded to try to hit the 'undo' button. In a way it is good that most of the stuff got saved, if not we'd have an even larger problem, which is that the scope of his actual contributions would have become the stuff of legend. At least that keeps things a little bit grounded in reality. Credit where credit is due, but let's keep some scope here _why was an ok guy while it lasted, but he certainly was no Newton, Leibniz or Ramanujan, and he did not put the 'fun' in programming except for the relatively small number of people that learned about programming through him. And for that last we should be grateful, and we should do more of it, and we should NOT destroy what we give to others to use as a base. Especially for someone that wrote open source libraries his actions were totally unconscionable and they negate a lot of the positive feelings I would have had to his person otherwise.

compay 17y ago

"I would suggest that as an admitted non-fan of Ruby then you are in no position to comment." I like _why too, but but by telling gdp shut up because he's not a "fan," you're actually making it much easier for him to make his point.

igravious 17y ago
Point taken. That was my second attempt. (The first was far less civil.) I am still of the opinion that gdp's comment was far more mean-spirited than my rejoinder. Or if not mean-spirited then lacking in imagination or possessing a real disconnect about what motivates people. But ok, point taken - my bad, I retract that part of my comment.

X-Istence 17y ago

Why are people who are not fans of Ruby not allowed to comment on how _why, arguably someone that made an impression in the programming world, has influenced their little corner of the world? _why has done absolutely nothing for me either, I cannot stand Ruby, and its community, I don't understand why all the reverence for this single man. Yes, I know of _why's work, and yes seeing other people use his old nickname makes me feel sad since they won't ever really appreciate the ideas, and projects he put out into the world, but why are we still writing about him? There are many other people that have contributed greatly to advancing of computer science as a whole that contributed to more than just one programming language that have changed the field of computer science as it was once known. Those people are the people we should be writing about, not someone who like a coward decided to up and quit. _why reminds me of my younger brother, and even partly of myself back when I was a kid, if monopoly or some other board game was not going my way, the board would go flying and so would all the pieces, and it would no longer exists. _why removing all of his content, not passing it along to the next group of people, not even leaving a backup in place thereby causing others to scramble to find the latest up-to-date versions from local disks is very much like that game of monopoly where I am losing, and it is a cowards move.

igravious 17y ago
Hi there. You are absolutely right X-Istence. I wrote that in the heat of the moment, as they say. I have already retracted the blanket edict in my reply to compay. Consider it doubly-retracted. Of course, I respect everyone's right to express their opinion. What I'm getting here from _why's detractors is that your animosity towards _why is bound up with your animosity towards Ruby. I have never understood language wars. Each language brings something different to the party. I learn different languages just for the fun of it. We can be competitive and cheerlead our own corner but it's tedious when people start spewing bile. I don't think you can project your childhood emotions onto _why's pulling of his online presence. We can only guess at why he did what he did. He disappearance and removing of the code and so forth that he was in control of does pose interesting questions in this age where source-code is shared and diaries are public. If it's important enough people will have copies and keep a hold of the bits they like. I can see how it would annoy somebody to feel like something of worth could be removed from the world so easily but maybe we'll have to get used to that. You could argue that _why had a social responsibility to not do what he did but surely we must allow him some personal autonomy as well. For my part I'll try to understand your perspective but could you also try to appreciate mine? Thanks!

gdp 17y ago

Allow me to quote a randomly-chosen comment from this thread: > _why's influence isn't only in code, but in thinking. And if you look around, for example on github, you will see a lot of people hacking away for fun, trying out new stuff and just doing something they love to do. Did _why start this trend? He didn't, but he was a big advocate of it. Yes, that's right, this person appears to be seriously suggesting that _why could have been responsible for people hacking for fun (in the "I'm not saying that...", right after saying it kinda way). > I'd argue his unique way of thinking has also pushed the boundaries of programming as a science in the way that calculus changed people's ways of thinking about math and physics. As influential on programming as calculus was on maths and physics? Really? _why is on equal footing with Newton and Leibniz now? > As for his strange charisma, I would say _why is to programming as Ramanujan was to mathematics. This one suggests that _why is to programming as a Fellow of the Royal Society was to mathematics! Awesome! > I always thought he was one of the most creative people currently working in any medium, Yep. That one pretty much speaks for itself. I mean, the _title_ of the article is "A Tale Of A Post-Modern Genius". Need I go on? I believe my use of the word "sycophantic" was justified and I stand by it. Genuine praise for someone's achievements is completely justified and should be given freely. This is not genuine praise. It appears to be a pissing contest between different people trying to find the most absurd hyperbole with which to describe the effect that _why had on them, the Ruby community, the programming world and the entire universe and all matter contained within it.

jacquesm 17y ago
I think in large part all of this is fueled by loss and grief, wondering what might have been, or maybe trying to lay blame as to why '_why' left. Most of it is really over the top, and you have to wonder how the non-ruby programmers get by, without access to _why's genius or his contribution to thinking in general. _why was just some guy, he had a nice run at it, decided that it wasn't for him in the long term and proceeded to try to hit the 'undo' button. In a way it is good that most of the stuff got saved, if not we'd have an even larger problem, which is that the scope of his actual contributions would have become the stuff of legend. At least that keeps things a little bit grounded in reality. Credit where credit is due, but let's keep some scope here _why was an ok guy while it lasted, but he certainly was no Newton, Leibniz or Ramanujan, and he did not put the 'fun' in programming except for the relatively small number of people that learned about programming through him. And for that last we should be grateful, and we should do more of it, and we should NOT destroy what we give to others to use as a base. Especially for someone that wrote open source libraries his actions were totally unconscionable and they negate a lot of the positive feelings I would have had to his person otherwise.