3 ms·

``I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the

by 63 4y ago

``I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing. When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun. Of course, the paying customers got shafted every now and then, and after a while we began to take their complaints seriously. We began to feel as if we really were responsible for the successful, error-free perfect use of these machines. I don't think we are. I think we're responsible for stretching them, setting them off in new directions, and keeping fun in the house. I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun. Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries. Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen. The world has too many of those already. What you know about computing other people will learn. Don't feel as if the key to successful computing is only in your hands. What's in your hands, I think and hope, is intelligence: the ability to see the machine as more than when you were first led up to it, that you can make it more.'' Alan J. Perlis (April 1, 1922-February 7, 1990) As quoted in the dedication of SICP, aka the wizard book[0]. [0] https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/books_pres_0/6515/sicp.zip/full-text/book/book-Z-H-3.html https://mitp-content-server.mit.edu/books/content/sectbyfn/b...

zacmps 4y ago
Unfortunately, I think this attitude is irresponsible. So many people's lives rely directly on software in one way or another that we shouldn't treat it so whimsically. That's not to say that the practise can't be fun, but just like building a bridge we need to make sure it works.
- kortilla 4y ago
  Most people aren’t building bridges though. Most people are building software that just assists some business process. That absolutely does not need the same rigor as building a bridge.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    There was once a programmer who was attached to the court of the warlord of Wu. The warlord asked the programmer: "Which is easier to design: an accounting package or an operating system?" "An operating system," replied the programmer. The warlord uttered an exclamation of disbelief. "Surely an accounting package is trivial next to the complexity of an operating system," he said. "Not so," said the programmer, "When designing an accounting package, the programmer operates as a mediator between people having different ideas: how it must operate, how its reports must appear, and how it must conform to the tax laws. By contrast, an operating system is not limited by outside appearances. When designing an operating system, the programmer seeks the simplest harmony between machine and ideas. This is why an operating system is easier to design." The warlord of Wu nodded and smiled. "That is all good and well, but which is easier to debug?" The programmer made no reply.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      (That entire post is a quote from The Tao of Programming by Geoffrey James, 1987.)
- krageon 4y ago
  Most people's lives don't rely on software to continue in any material way, outside of some extremely specialised circumstances (e.g. medical equipment). Just because someone's life is impacted by software doesn't mean that you should then suddenly enshrine their approval as the word of your lord. Candy impacts people's lives too, but we do not view it in nearly the same way.
  - anthonypasq 4y ago
    this is a preposterously naive view of software. the entire energy grid relies on software, cars rely on software, all of manufacturing, the entire financial system.
    - underdeserver 4y ago
      Agriculture, transportation, water desalination, as examples for things run by software that human lives directly depend on.
- gumby 4y ago
  Perlis was a research scientist so had freedom not everybody does. But I have worked with people in other fields (mechanical engineering, biology, medicinal chemistry, etc) who took similar delight in their field, and it was infectious. One can design a bridge and still have room for whimsy.
- analog31 4y ago
  That's why there are sculptors and there are mechanical engineers. And for the engineers, the engineering part of it is what makes it fun.
thomastjeffery 4y ago
QA can be fun, too. Taking a fragile system, and making it more stable can be a very exciting problem to tackle. Taking the fragile parts of a system, and swapping them out with a more inherently stable equivalent can be even more exciting. For example, NixOS is one of the projects I'm most excited about lately. It has a long way to go for usability (and in some ways, fun), but the inherent stability is there and working.

by 63 4y ago

zacmps 4y ago

Unfortunately, I think this attitude is irresponsible. So many people's lives rely directly on software in one way or another that we shouldn't treat it so whimsically. That's not to say that the practise can't be fun, but just like building a bridge we need to make sure it works.

kortilla 4y ago
Most people aren’t building bridges though. Most people are building software that just assists some business process. That absolutely does not need the same rigor as building a bridge.
- zozbot234 4y ago
  There was once a programmer who was attached to the court of the warlord of Wu. The warlord asked the programmer: "Which is easier to design: an accounting package or an operating system?" "An operating system," replied the programmer. The warlord uttered an exclamation of disbelief. "Surely an accounting package is trivial next to the complexity of an operating system," he said. "Not so," said the programmer, "When designing an accounting package, the programmer operates as a mediator between people having different ideas: how it must operate, how its reports must appear, and how it must conform to the tax laws. By contrast, an operating system is not limited by outside appearances. When designing an operating system, the programmer seeks the simplest harmony between machine and ideas. This is why an operating system is easier to design." The warlord of Wu nodded and smiled. "That is all good and well, but which is easier to debug?" The programmer made no reply.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    (That entire post is a quote from The Tao of Programming by Geoffrey James, 1987.)
krageon 4y ago
Most people's lives don't rely on software to continue in any material way, outside of some extremely specialised circumstances (e.g. medical equipment). Just because someone's life is impacted by software doesn't mean that you should then suddenly enshrine their approval as the word of your lord. Candy impacts people's lives too, but we do not view it in nearly the same way.
- anthonypasq 4y ago
  this is a preposterously naive view of software. the entire energy grid relies on software, cars rely on software, all of manufacturing, the entire financial system.
  - underdeserver 4y ago
    Agriculture, transportation, water desalination, as examples for things run by software that human lives directly depend on.
gumby 4y ago
Perlis was a research scientist so had freedom not everybody does. But I have worked with people in other fields (mechanical engineering, biology, medicinal chemistry, etc) who took similar delight in their field, and it was infectious. One can design a bridge and still have room for whimsy.
analog31 4y ago
That's why there are sculptors and there are mechanical engineers. And for the engineers, the engineering part of it is what makes it fun.

thomastjeffery 4y ago

QA can be fun, too. Taking a fragile system, and making it more stable can be a very exciting problem to tackle. Taking the fragile parts of a system, and swapping them out with a more inherently stable equivalent can be even more exciting. For example, NixOS is one of the projects I'm most excited about lately. It has a long way to go for usability (and in some ways, fun), but the inherent stability is there and working.