4 ms·
Re: open source notebook see: http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html I'll make the relation very clear. There
by Jd 15y ago
Re: open source notebook see: http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
I'll make the relation very clear. There is a segment of the Lisp community, which most certainly includes Paul Graham, that maintains that projects with large team sizes are bad. There is a certain logic here, as it is hard to maintain a high average intelligence distributed across a large number of people. Most true geniuses were loners. Regardless, projects of a certain scope (i.e. building a space shuttle) require large teams. You simply can't do it with two guys in a basement.
In a certain sense the computer language employed is irrelevant, except that the lisp community has never, largely because of the facts that should be obvious but are apparently not to the introverted "genius" types they pray on, produced good and extensive enough libraries to be viable for most real world tasks. In case you didn't notice, for example, it took what, 4 years for Hacker News to get HTTPS support.
I don't want to rib anyone too badly, because I am a strong supporter of what YCombinator is doing in general and in the incorporation of lambdas and closures in newer languages, but I think generally speaking it is clear that the Lisp culture is not to cooperate but to position one's self as some sort of genius and thus to create one's own dialect, etc.
I'll give you an example that will probably irritate some people, but is relevant here. Microsoft Word is, in my opinion, one of the greatest architectural marvels of modern civilization. The feature set of that single app is truly extraordinary, and there are all sorts of wonky ways that you can do lots of tasks that makes millions (and potentially even billions) of people's lives better every day. I understand that there is a point to OpenOffice and "fighting the man" and whatever since Microsoft certainly crushed some competitors in mean ways, but realistically there is nothing in the world that competes.
Now you might say, oh sure but I can just use vim and use latex for formatting (or even google docs). And in a certain sense you might be right too, but sooner or later you will find a feature that is not accessible to you (I recently noticed that change tracking still absolutely blows in Google Docs compared to Word).
Why do I bring this up? Well, even if you are right that "the hardest part of going to the Moon is achieving Earth orbit," you still have to have all of those other things. You need life support or you dead; this is non-negotiable, just in the way that mail merge is not negotiable for millions of people at millions of office worldwide. And if you want life support (or mail merge), you need to work with the people who design these other systems.
By the way, I'm not saying you need to like any of this. I'm simply saying that if you want to build something great, you have to at times slog through the mud. My experience with Lispers is they are frequently afraid to get their hands dirty. And that doesn't cut it except in a pretty-ditty fantasy castle.
- rbanffy 15y ago> Regardless, projects of a certain scope (i.e. building a space shuttle) require large teams. The shuttles are not engineering successes. Most large projects (large as in "lots of brains required to think about how they are going to work") usually aren't either. I'll side with pg on this. Humans cannot organize that well and less ambitious steps are a better approach to solve really big problems. Languages are tools you use to express and think about problems. There are problems that are more amenable to be expressed in terms of Lisp and others that are more suited for C. Or SQL, or Forth. It may be hard to express mud in Lisp, but I don't think the whole thing is as bad as you do. But I have to wonder... Does anyone still use mail merge?
- Jd 15y agoWhat are the shuttles if not engineering successes? PR stunts? How would you categorize them? There are certainly problems (like providing a good and functional high-speed rail system) that are not really questions of "genius" and more practical questions of how to apply already developed technology, which, given the politics of our day, might require a different type of "genius" to approach. It is interesting that you describe language as a tool to think about a problem. Is it really so? Is it only because you have the language that you think about the problem in terms of the language? Humans cannot organize that well? Well, I guess Cape Canaveral in 1969 was smoke and mirrors -- or what do you mean? I think you probably mean that the cost of organizing at a large scale like that is not a cost you are personally (or, collectively in terms of the culture of elites in the West) willing to bear. I would even suggest that it very well could be in actuality an unwillingness to bear any sacrifice for the sake of a collective goal. "Less ambitious steps" for "really big problems." Sounds great. What steps do you mean and what problems are you possibly hoping to solve? How the private sector might be able to get someone in space -- an "engineering success" that was already accomplished approximately 50 years ago, now potentially finally accomplished by the private sector, so long as individual Russian tycoons are able to pay for $100M tickets with money stolen from starving peasants. A brave new world indeed. As for mail merge, I have very little interest in the common man. I live in Silicon valley and watch the world burn from a carefully-cultivated distance.