5 ms·

The dividing line between hipster programmers and “engineers” is nonexistent. They are just other programmers. Those millions of developers didn’t hop on the ba

The dividing line between hipster programmers and “engineers” is nonexistent. They are just other programmers. Those millions of developers didn’t hop on the bandwagon just because Java was sitting there, it required a lot of forward-thinking, high-skill people to get off the ground. And they were hipsters at the time.

coldtea 3y ago
>The dividing line between hipster programmers and “engineers” is nonexistent. The dividing line between baldness and having your hair is also nonexistent, and yet both states exist and one can tell them apart if they see them. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ >Those millions of developers didn’t hop on the bandwagon just because Java was sitting there, it required a lot of forward-thinking, high-skill people to get off the ground. And they were hipsters at the time. Nah, I was there "at the time", and this is bad example. Java got traction because of marketing to corporate departments, not because of "forward-thinking, high-skill people" driving it. It was literally the first language that came with a full blown, tens-of-millions, commercial hype campaign. In any case, the early adopters were neither "hipsters" nor more mature "engineer" types. It was the duped-by-hipsters types, but at that time enticed by marketing. The kind of hipsters described above and in abundance 2023 (or even 2010) sense hardly existed back then (Java caught on during 1997-2000), and even when, very rarely, they did, they didn't have the means and captive audience to make their hype be adopted (people hyped things like Ada, Smalltalk, Lisp, Eiffel, and other lost causes). Back then it was mostly marketing driven hype, sold to corporate decision makers. Modern hipster devs came about with blogs, social media, the proliferation of conferences, the rise of startups as we know them today when they recovered after the dot-com boom, and companies like Google and Facebook fighting it out for developer influence.
- ironmagma 3y ago
  And coincidentally it makes no sense to deride people who have no hair because it doesn’t indicate a moral or technical failing.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Not sure how this applies as a suggestion, as nobody derided them here.
    - ironmagma 3y ago
      > "Newest technologies" are for early adopters and hype suckers. This definitely doesn't come off as "positive and a negative". By grouping them together (and casting them as an "other") you are devaluing them.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        You wrote about me deriding bald people in this thread (telling me it's bad "to deride people who have no hair"). My response above was about that: that I did no such thing. I mentioned bald people vs people with hair as an example of a sorites ("no clear boundaries") problem. Not to cluster them with hype-promoting developers (that doesn't even make sense). As for the others types that you mention, sure: the very purpose of the original comment was to deride people promoting hype.
        ironmagma 3y ago
        It's impressive the lengths you'll go to avoid seeing the point. My message is, don't write off people just because they appear to be hipsters. Similar to people lacking hair, who are oftentimes the SAME persons as those people having hair, the developers participating in new technologies are often the same as the ones writing in mature codebases.
        coldtea 3y ago
        The "hair' argument becaome so convoluted I don't even know where to address, so let's address your main concern. Are we allowed to write off people's activity for any reason? Dislike certain trends people follow? Criticize some tendencies or bad habbits? If so, I chose to criticize hype-merchants and write them off (regarding that aspect of their life, I'm sure they could still be wonderful parents, or golf players, or whatever otherwise).

coldtea 3y ago

>The dividing line between hipster programmers and “engineers” is nonexistent. The dividing line between baldness and having your hair is also nonexistent, and yet both states exist and one can tell them apart if they see them. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ >Those millions of developers didn’t hop on the bandwagon just because Java was sitting there, it required a lot of forward-thinking, high-skill people to get off the ground. And they were hipsters at the time. Nah, I was there "at the time", and this is bad example. Java got traction because of marketing to corporate departments, not because of "forward-thinking, high-skill people" driving it. It was literally the first language that came with a full blown, tens-of-millions, commercial hype campaign. In any case, the early adopters were neither "hipsters" nor more mature "engineer" types. It was the duped-by-hipsters types, but at that time enticed by marketing. The kind of hipsters described above and in abundance 2023 (or even 2010) sense hardly existed back then (Java caught on during 1997-2000), and even when, very rarely, they did, they didn't have the means and captive audience to make their hype be adopted (people hyped things like Ada, Smalltalk, Lisp, Eiffel, and other lost causes). Back then it was mostly marketing driven hype, sold to corporate decision makers. Modern hipster devs came about with blogs, social media, the proliferation of conferences, the rise of startups as we know them today when they recovered after the dot-com boom, and companies like Google and Facebook fighting it out for developer influence.

ironmagma 3y ago
And coincidentally it makes no sense to deride people who have no hair because it doesn’t indicate a moral or technical failing.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Not sure how this applies as a suggestion, as nobody derided them here.
  - ironmagma 3y ago
    > "Newest technologies" are for early adopters and hype suckers. This definitely doesn't come off as "positive and a negative". By grouping them together (and casting them as an "other") you are devaluing them.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      You wrote about me deriding bald people in this thread (telling me it's bad "to deride people who have no hair"). My response above was about that: that I did no such thing. I mentioned bald people vs people with hair as an example of a sorites ("no clear boundaries") problem. Not to cluster them with hype-promoting developers (that doesn't even make sense). As for the others types that you mention, sure: the very purpose of the original comment was to deride people promoting hype.
      - ironmagma 3y ago
        It's impressive the lengths you'll go to avoid seeing the point. My message is, don't write off people just because they appear to be hipsters. Similar to people lacking hair, who are oftentimes the SAME persons as those people having hair, the developers participating in new technologies are often the same as the ones writing in mature codebases.
        coldtea 3y ago
        The "hair' argument becaome so convoluted I don't even know where to address, so let's address your main concern. Are we allowed to write off people's activity for any reason? Dislike certain trends people follow? Criticize some tendencies or bad habbits? If so, I chose to criticize hype-merchants and write them off (regarding that aspect of their life, I'm sure they could still be wonderful parents, or golf players, or whatever otherwise).