3 ms·

The basic premise of the article is that systems programming=irrelevant bloat and abstraction while data reduction=definite purpose and utility People writi

by theoh 8y ago

The basic premise of the article is that systems programming=irrelevant bloat and abstraction while data reduction=definite purpose and utility People writing python notebooks to do data analysis are probably fairly comparable to the scientific computing programmers of the past, but I feel like this picture tends to dismiss the computer science side of systems programming:things like GUIs, network code, processes and virtual memory, all the architectural aspects of computing. One might prefer APL or Forth for writing one-page programs, and it's probably true that systems now are bloated relative to what they could be. Still, there is much of interest going on in a typical operating system, compiler or video game, while a typical data analysis notebook is IMO fairly dull and even basic, from a software angle.

andyburke 8y ago
Yeah, the author's take is myopic. What they call bloat, people from the 70s would call wondrous: ubiquitous networking with and without wires, beautiful graphical interfaces, encryption everywhere (and expanding), far more open systems than proprietary re-engineered ones, the list goes on and on.
- cdcfa78156ae5 8y ago
  The author is Philip Greenspun, who in the 1980s worked with the people that created all of the things you listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun There is nothing myopic about his perspective.
  - theoh 8y ago
    It's fair to mention that he is well known, though in fact I'm one of the old guard that remembers when he had a higher profile. But, as with a new Paul Graham essay, surely we can critique the blog post on its merits instead of falling back on an assessment based on some kind of appeal to authority/"expertise by association". Philip Greenspan doesn't need to be treated with kid gloves as if he was the pope. John Ousterhout made comments that touch on some similar (though not identical) distinctions in programming practices. That was years ago, and he was then a much more credible figure in software than Greenspun. All the same, his essay was heavily criticised. That's what serious intellectual discussion should involve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousterhout%27s_dichotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousterhout%27s_dichotomy http://www.tcl.tk/doc/scripting.html http://www.tcl.tk/doc/scripting.html

by theoh 8y ago

andyburke 8y ago

Yeah, the author's take is myopic. What they call bloat, people from the 70s would call wondrous: ubiquitous networking with and without wires, beautiful graphical interfaces, encryption everywhere (and expanding), far more open systems than proprietary re-engineered ones, the list goes on and on.

cdcfa78156ae5 8y ago
The author is Philip Greenspun, who in the 1980s worked with the people that created all of the things you listed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun There is nothing myopic about his perspective.
- theoh 8y ago
  It's fair to mention that he is well known, though in fact I'm one of the old guard that remembers when he had a higher profile. But, as with a new Paul Graham essay, surely we can critique the blog post on its merits instead of falling back on an assessment based on some kind of appeal to authority/"expertise by association". Philip Greenspan doesn't need to be treated with kid gloves as if he was the pope. John Ousterhout made comments that touch on some similar (though not identical) distinctions in programming practices. That was years ago, and he was then a much more credible figure in software than Greenspun. All the same, his essay was heavily criticised. That's what serious intellectual discussion should involve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousterhout%27s_dichotomy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousterhout%27s_dichotomy http://www.tcl.tk/doc/scripting.html http://www.tcl.tk/doc/scripting.html