5 ms·

I think this is a reasonable position, but the reason people are downvoting you is it's a defeatist position, and there's reason to be more optimistic.

kilgnad 4y ago
I just regurgitated Sussmans position from the article/video... Sussman co-wrote SICP.
- inimino 4y ago
  Your words were "the only way" and "fools errand", what I actually see in the clip is that the course was due for a refresh, both the original professors quit, the administration had no idea what to do after that, and the department head had to teach it while they figured it out, meanwhile committees were formed and in the end Python won because ("for reasons no-one understands") it had all of the libraries.
  - kilgnad 4y ago
    Sussman exactly said what I said. He quit because engineering changed, the course was no longer relevant. Perhaps the words are too harsh. But is there any other way to build something more complex then you can understand? Using pre-existing libraries is the only way. Additionally if you tried to say build a triple A game without using any libraries would that not be a fools errand?
    - inimino 4y ago
      He says "although still important intellectually, it was no longer relevant to the kinds of things people needed." What people? The students? Working programmers? Companies? The university administration? Notice how he tells the anecdote about quitting "I suppose Hal and I basically walked into the department head's office sometime in the end of 97 and said, 'We quit. On this. Okay? Figure out what to do'.", and then the department couldn't figure out what to do. The story here isn't that a course that had been the same for over a decade was out-of-date, the story is that the organization didn't know where to go from there, they still don't know, and the people that were originally passionate about teaching the class were of retirement age, and both the profs and the textbook were retired from the class at the same time. If you want to read more into it than that, then we're reading the tealeaves of university administration decisions that not even the people making them are often in a position to understand. How do you know that building something more complex than you can understand is necessary, or is a good idea? Feynman said "What I cannot create, I do not understand," which seems like a better approach to me. I recently ran across Jonathan Blow's effort to create a new programming language, because he noticed that C++ is bloated to the point of buing unfit for purpose, and supposed that he could do better, despite being just one person (or perhaps, because of that). As I understand it, he's interested in working on games with the engine that he's writing in his new language. So the jury is still out on that fool's errand. Of course, he's still using the standard libraries provided by the OS, and he is after all writing an engine (and not just a standalone game) so your point stands.
      - kilgnad 4y ago
        Bro, let's say the world embraced FP and it was the dominant paradigm and the techniques and patterns of SICP were taught in EVERY computer science curriculum. The change Sussman described that happened in engineering WILL STILL occur. He stated it didn't just happen with programming. It happened across the entire stack from the hardware all the way to software. What happens in this parallel universe? Most people won't spend the majority of there time using the techniques they learned in SICP.. instead they'll be trying to figure out how to get all these arcane libraries to work. >How do you know that building something more complex than you can understand is necessary, or is a good idea? Feynman said "What I cannot create, I do not understand," which seems like a better approach to me. How is what Feynman said a technique? He stated a fact about himself. If he can't create it, he can't understand it. So I'm pretty sure Feynman doesn't fully understand how an airplane works because he's never created one. This is not a technique this is fact. That being said, pilots ALSO don't understand how airplanes work. But that doesn't mean pilots can't use an airplane; in the same way I can use a library. >I recently ran across Jonathan Blow's effort to create a new programming language, because he noticed that C++ is bloated to the point of buing unfit for purpose, and supposed that he could do better, despite being just one person (or perhaps, because of that). As I understand it, he's interested in working on games with the engine that he's writing in his new language. So the jury is still out on that fool's errand. Of course, he's still using the standard libraries provided by the OS, and he is after all writing an engine (and not just a standalone game) so your point stands. It's a bit of a fools errand depending on how you look at it. If he had a boss, and was working for a company he'd be fucked because it'd take too long. Let's be real... he's more doing that for fun. If your goal was to fly an airplane, do you start off by building one? The only type of person who would do this is someone who does it as a sort of "fun" project. We all know C++ is a gigantic piece of garbage and we all can sort of visualize the better way in our imagination, but it doesn't change the fact it is still the most practical choice for many applications. Speaking of C++, Rust was(and may well be) a replacement for C++ started by mozilla. While rust was a great contribution to the community it ended up being pretty bad for mozilla from a business perspective so they dropped it. For mozilla yes it was a fools errand. For the engineers working for mozilla to develop rust it was a smart choice to work on cool shit on someone elses dime.
    - murdoze 4y ago
      Like DOOM?
hnfong 4y ago
It feels good to be naïve. It bogles my mind how, after years of learning about complexity theory, people who learned CS cannot comprehend the fact that maybe this wonderful world is perhaps more complex than a single person could comprehend.
- inimino 4y ago
  Well that's certainly a perspective, but you don't know what you don't know.

kilgnad 4y ago

I just regurgitated Sussmans position from the article/video... Sussman co-wrote SICP.

inimino 4y ago
Your words were "the only way" and "fools errand", what I actually see in the clip is that the course was due for a refresh, both the original professors quit, the administration had no idea what to do after that, and the department head had to teach it while they figured it out, meanwhile committees were formed and in the end Python won because ("for reasons no-one understands") it had all of the libraries.
- kilgnad 4y ago
  Sussman exactly said what I said. He quit because engineering changed, the course was no longer relevant. Perhaps the words are too harsh. But is there any other way to build something more complex then you can understand? Using pre-existing libraries is the only way. Additionally if you tried to say build a triple A game without using any libraries would that not be a fools errand?
  - inimino 4y ago
    He says "although still important intellectually, it was no longer relevant to the kinds of things people needed." What people? The students? Working programmers? Companies? The university administration? Notice how he tells the anecdote about quitting "I suppose Hal and I basically walked into the department head's office sometime in the end of 97 and said, 'We quit. On this. Okay? Figure out what to do'.", and then the department couldn't figure out what to do. The story here isn't that a course that had been the same for over a decade was out-of-date, the story is that the organization didn't know where to go from there, they still don't know, and the people that were originally passionate about teaching the class were of retirement age, and both the profs and the textbook were retired from the class at the same time. If you want to read more into it than that, then we're reading the tealeaves of university administration decisions that not even the people making them are often in a position to understand. How do you know that building something more complex than you can understand is necessary, or is a good idea? Feynman said "What I cannot create, I do not understand," which seems like a better approach to me. I recently ran across Jonathan Blow's effort to create a new programming language, because he noticed that C++ is bloated to the point of buing unfit for purpose, and supposed that he could do better, despite being just one person (or perhaps, because of that). As I understand it, he's interested in working on games with the engine that he's writing in his new language. So the jury is still out on that fool's errand. Of course, he's still using the standard libraries provided by the OS, and he is after all writing an engine (and not just a standalone game) so your point stands.
    - kilgnad 4y ago
      Bro, let's say the world embraced FP and it was the dominant paradigm and the techniques and patterns of SICP were taught in EVERY computer science curriculum. The change Sussman described that happened in engineering WILL STILL occur. He stated it didn't just happen with programming. It happened across the entire stack from the hardware all the way to software. What happens in this parallel universe? Most people won't spend the majority of there time using the techniques they learned in SICP.. instead they'll be trying to figure out how to get all these arcane libraries to work. >How do you know that building something more complex than you can understand is necessary, or is a good idea? Feynman said "What I cannot create, I do not understand," which seems like a better approach to me. How is what Feynman said a technique? He stated a fact about himself. If he can't create it, he can't understand it. So I'm pretty sure Feynman doesn't fully understand how an airplane works because he's never created one. This is not a technique this is fact. That being said, pilots ALSO don't understand how airplanes work. But that doesn't mean pilots can't use an airplane; in the same way I can use a library. >I recently ran across Jonathan Blow's effort to create a new programming language, because he noticed that C++ is bloated to the point of buing unfit for purpose, and supposed that he could do better, despite being just one person (or perhaps, because of that). As I understand it, he's interested in working on games with the engine that he's writing in his new language. So the jury is still out on that fool's errand. Of course, he's still using the standard libraries provided by the OS, and he is after all writing an engine (and not just a standalone game) so your point stands. It's a bit of a fools errand depending on how you look at it. If he had a boss, and was working for a company he'd be fucked because it'd take too long. Let's be real... he's more doing that for fun. If your goal was to fly an airplane, do you start off by building one? The only type of person who would do this is someone who does it as a sort of "fun" project. We all know C++ is a gigantic piece of garbage and we all can sort of visualize the better way in our imagination, but it doesn't change the fact it is still the most practical choice for many applications. Speaking of C++, Rust was(and may well be) a replacement for C++ started by mozilla. While rust was a great contribution to the community it ended up being pretty bad for mozilla from a business perspective so they dropped it. For mozilla yes it was a fools errand. For the engineers working for mozilla to develop rust it was a smart choice to work on cool shit on someone elses dime.
  - murdoze 4y ago
    Like DOOM?

hnfong 4y ago

It feels good to be naïve. It bogles my mind how, after years of learning about complexity theory, people who learned CS cannot comprehend the fact that maybe this wonderful world is perhaps more complex than a single person could comprehend.

inimino 4y ago
Well that's certainly a perspective, but you don't know what you don't know.