4 ms·

I fully agree, but all it really says is, "learn how things actually work, people!" This is still mostly fluff and identity politics, hoping people who know the

I fully agree, but all it really says is, "learn how things actually work, people!" This is still mostly fluff and identity politics, hoping people who know they're old-school will upvote it. Flagged.

abyx 16y ago
No fluff intended. And no upvotes phishing - I don't write for upvotes. Been bothered by this, and hope to help someone understand this is important. Good day!
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  I think posts like this mostly just encourage people to use the command line to feel "old-school", not because it works. Kernighan and Pike's The Practice of Programming covers similar material very well. And yes, I was a bit overly critical. I'm annoyed by that style of article, not that specific one, sorry.
knieveltech 16y ago
Do you take your cynicism for a walk every morning before or after coffee?
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  Before - my cynicism gets the water boiling. Seriously, I wonder if these sort of posts make people less likely to use powerful-but-old tools, by further inflating their reputation in a way that makes them seem intimidating. I much prefer the opposite approach, such as in Jack Crenshaw's "Let's Write a Compiler" (http://compilers.iecc.com/crenshaw/ http://compilers.iecc.com/crenshaw/) - You can make things complicated if you want, but the basics aren't that hard, and helping people to realize "you can do this, you don't need to be some kind of programmer demigod" is very empowering. Also, I recommend reading the source to tools you admire - seeing other peoples' dirty hacks can be a good reminder that shipping something useful beats waiting until it's perfect.
  - knieveltech 16y ago
    You make a good point here. I was thinking about this last night. It seems like there has been a cultural shift over the last 15 years or so. This is entirely anecdotal but it seems like attitudes have changed. When I first got into computers/coding everyone I met was so excited to run into another enthusiast and sharing and collaboration where pretty much the rule. Even the writing from the day seemed to emphasized two types of programmer: skilled and green. These days everything I read emphasises two types of programmers: ubermensch and the tragically useless, a dichotomy that entirely drops the implication that people in general are trainable in favor of implying there are gods among us and those doomed to merely mortal abilities should do the rest of the industry a favor and take up landscaping professionally.
    - silentbicycle 16y ago
      Yes. I wonder if that split is one of the reasons so much energy goes into re-inventing and re-discovering old ideas. My academic background is in historical research, so I'm particularly conscious of that. It probably doesn't help that the ACM, etc. keep a lot of important primary documents locked behind their paywall, either.
      - knieveltech 16y ago
        I'd say it's an entirely human failing to eschew "old" knowledge in favor of all that is shiny and new. This is in no way limited to the programming field. For example this kind of behavior frequently leads to comical nonsense in the machine shop at the local hacker garage (we have a local TechShop). I've lost count of the number of times I've seen folks gravitate to the shiniest, most miserably complex high tech tools in the shop simply because they're 1. shiny, 2. high tech, 3. complex. There was a guy in last week who's working on a project he plans on patenting. I watched as he spent over an hour setting up a complex system of jigs and programming one of the CNC milling machines in the shop. Seconds after he set the thing in motion the bit managed to snag his work piece (a small bolt), snatch it out of the jig which it then promptly used to murder his jigging system. I could offer a laundry list of minor mistakes this dude made, (no cutting fluid, incorrect jig material/setup, CNC programming error) but the one big mistake is the most interesting in my mind: he picked the wrong tool for the job. A dead simple drill press and a machinist's vice would have not only been entirely sufficient to the task at hand, going "low tech" would have had him productively drilling parts in less than five minutes.

abyx 16y ago

No fluff intended. And no upvotes phishing - I don't write for upvotes. Been bothered by this, and hope to help someone understand this is important. Good day!

silentbicycle 16y ago
I think posts like this mostly just encourage people to use the command line to feel "old-school", not because it works. Kernighan and Pike's The Practice of Programming covers similar material very well. And yes, I was a bit overly critical. I'm annoyed by that style of article, not that specific one, sorry.

knieveltech 16y ago

Do you take your cynicism for a walk every morning before or after coffee?

silentbicycle 16y ago
Before - my cynicism gets the water boiling. Seriously, I wonder if these sort of posts make people less likely to use powerful-but-old tools, by further inflating their reputation in a way that makes them seem intimidating. I much prefer the opposite approach, such as in Jack Crenshaw's "Let's Write a Compiler" (http://compilers.iecc.com/crenshaw/ http://compilers.iecc.com/crenshaw/) - You can make things complicated if you want, but the basics aren't that hard, and helping people to realize "you can do this, you don't need to be some kind of programmer demigod" is very empowering. Also, I recommend reading the source to tools you admire - seeing other peoples' dirty hacks can be a good reminder that shipping something useful beats waiting until it's perfect.
- knieveltech 16y ago
  You make a good point here. I was thinking about this last night. It seems like there has been a cultural shift over the last 15 years or so. This is entirely anecdotal but it seems like attitudes have changed. When I first got into computers/coding everyone I met was so excited to run into another enthusiast and sharing and collaboration where pretty much the rule. Even the writing from the day seemed to emphasized two types of programmer: skilled and green. These days everything I read emphasises two types of programmers: ubermensch and the tragically useless, a dichotomy that entirely drops the implication that people in general are trainable in favor of implying there are gods among us and those doomed to merely mortal abilities should do the rest of the industry a favor and take up landscaping professionally.
  - silentbicycle 16y ago
    Yes. I wonder if that split is one of the reasons so much energy goes into re-inventing and re-discovering old ideas. My academic background is in historical research, so I'm particularly conscious of that. It probably doesn't help that the ACM, etc. keep a lot of important primary documents locked behind their paywall, either.
    - knieveltech 16y ago
      I'd say it's an entirely human failing to eschew "old" knowledge in favor of all that is shiny and new. This is in no way limited to the programming field. For example this kind of behavior frequently leads to comical nonsense in the machine shop at the local hacker garage (we have a local TechShop). I've lost count of the number of times I've seen folks gravitate to the shiniest, most miserably complex high tech tools in the shop simply because they're 1. shiny, 2. high tech, 3. complex. There was a guy in last week who's working on a project he plans on patenting. I watched as he spent over an hour setting up a complex system of jigs and programming one of the CNC milling machines in the shop. Seconds after he set the thing in motion the bit managed to snag his work piece (a small bolt), snatch it out of the jig which it then promptly used to murder his jigging system. I could offer a laundry list of minor mistakes this dude made, (no cutting fluid, incorrect jig material/setup, CNC programming error) but the one big mistake is the most interesting in my mind: he picked the wrong tool for the job. A dead simple drill press and a machinist's vice would have not only been entirely sufficient to the task at hand, going "low tech" would have had him productively drilling parts in less than five minutes.