9 ms·

I'll take this opportunity to link to Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby - https://poignant.guide https://poignant.guide - one of the most unique and inspiring progra

I'll take this opportunity to link to Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby - https://poignant.guide https://poignant.guide - one of the most unique and inspiring programming language tutorials you'll ever read.

ornornor 3y ago
I never got it. Everyone says it’s fantastic, I feel like an idiot for absolutely not getting it at all when it came out and still not today.
- esaym 3y ago
  Seriously, same here.
- gosukiwi 3y ago
  Yeah not my thing either, I'd rather see a cheatsheet and a few examples lol
  - anyfoo 3y ago
    You can't learn a programming language like that, unless it already has very similar paradigms to languages you already know. For example, try to learn APL[1] or Haskell like that (or just assembly if you haven't done any kind of assembly yet). [1] And that's not just because of the arcane symbols.
    - marginalia_nu 3y ago
      I think assembly is probably the one language family you'd find most success learning from a reference sheet.
      - anyfoo 3y ago
        Once you've been told what a register, a stack, and an addressing mode is (among other details), sure. But then you do know the paradigms already. But of the languages I mentioned, assembly is certainly the one where the required concepts can be explained quickest, probably by far...
      - Cerium 3y ago
        Yeah, sure - as long as that reference sheet is the CPU reference manual.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  For what it’s worth, I felt the same way, but never dared voice it. I think it’s worth appreciating as a thing of beauty. The raw talent required to make it is just incredible, and it probably takes a Rubyist to fully see the intricacies of what we’re meant to “get”. There’s a place for this kind of work, and it’s one of the delights of life that it exists at all.
- eddieroger 3y ago
  I did get it, and I would argue this book made me a better engineer. People learn different ways and retain knowledge differently. Some folks do really well with technical manuals and minimal but factual informational, and some folks respond better to more novel approaches. _why's guide was definitely the latter, and a vocal group of people seemed to agree. While _why's version was definitely on the far side of novel, the approach itself was used in a whole series[0] of books. It's all good that it wasn't your thing, and you're not an idiot, it just wasn't your style. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_First_(book_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_First_(book_series)
- throw_pm23 3y ago
  I loved it and found it super funny and inspiring. Never cared about Ruby though.
- thom 3y ago
  It was very much of a time and place, and obviously people are welcome to take or leave it. I certainly cringe that every language now seems to need its own twee, jokey, book-long tutorial, like Learn You a Haskell for Great Good and Clojure for the Brave and True. But Why’s (Poignant) Guide captured the playfulness and nostalgia for lost time that the Ruby community evoked for a lot of people back then, especially those that had grown up with computers but drifted into enterprise software and watched the joy of technology slowly seep out of their lives. Whether it's a good way to learn Ruby the language, I don't really remember.
  - mjw1007 3y ago
    I don't think the jokey book-long tutorial is a new phenomenon. I learned Fortran in the 80s from the Fortran Coloring Book.
    - thom 3y ago
      I now also see Comic Pascal from 1984, fair enough.
      - steveklabnik 3y ago
        Computer Lib / Dream Machines, 1974.
    - kbutler 3y ago
      1981 Getting Started with TRS-80 Basic was also playful - https://archive.org/details/Getting_Started_with_TRS-80_Basic_1981_Tandy/page/n1/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/Getting_Started_with_TRS-80_Basi...
  - dionidium 3y ago
    In case it makes anybody feel better, I was "around" at the time and I never got it, either. Tried to read it many times and never could finish.
- preseinger 3y ago
  it characterizes programming in a way that is basically incoherent to most stereotypical programmers (i agree with you, for the record, it was gobbledegook to me too) the question is: does programming represent some kind of subjective expression, or some kind of objective precision? why's little zine says it's the former, but that's not how i see it at all programming is, for me, like working on math problems, or balancing equations, it's strict and pure and precise, and that's what i love about it, there's no connection to anything like art, or writing (in the novel sense), or other kinds of subjective expression but for some people, programming is like art, or writing a novel, or in any case a subjective expression of some abstract idea (or ideas) that they have at least this is what i see as the discrepancy
  - rahoulb 3y ago
    I always said "Python is like writing maths, ruby is like writing english"
    - preseinger 3y ago
      right! and, to build on that: people who see programming as maths understand it fundamentally differently than those who see it as prose, they approach every aspect of programming differently, evaluate "quality" on entirely different metrics, etc. in my experience, this is a major source of friction in programming teams, and deserves to be addressed more directly -- if i had it my way, i'd prefer that those who see programming as prose would be disabused of this incorrect notion, but i understand that this is my bias speaking, and not any objective truth :)
      - rahoulb 3y ago
        With Ruby I feel (feel being the operative word) like I’m free to get the computer to do what I want and create something that looks good and makes me happy. But in other languages I immediately feel cramped and constrained - and the code looks ugly to my eyes. As for correctness and quality, number one is it has to fulfil the business requirements I’m being paid for (and I’ve shipped lots of crappy code that I’m ashamed of but the clients are very happy) and secondary, I like to look back at it and see something elegant that also looks good in an editor. Of course, the definitions of elegant and “looks good” are the real questions here.
- q845712 3y ago
  I said this elsewhere too -- while in general I like things _like_ the poignant guide, and appreciate its existence, I never actually finished reading it. To me it's an interesting touchstone work showing/reminding that the "invisibly neutral" tone we've collectively adopted is still an editorial choice and cultural moment. I'm sure writing and communication styles will drift back and forth over the next few decades. Sometime soon (if not already) another generation of younger developers will coalesce around some document that feels authentically counter-cultural, like their own late-night jokes and dreams have been given just enough coherence to hook them in, and then I probably still won't get it because I'll be out of touch.... :)
- JackFr 3y ago
  Mostly the same, except I don’t feel like an idiot for not getting it. I thought it was self-indulgent and too clever by half. But I admit that’s just taste and not a measure of its objective worth. I have a theory about _why’s popularity though. I think a lot of it comes from the cohort of us who were strictly trained in a C/Fortran/Knuth Art of Computer Programming style old-school approach. When your first presented with the mind blowing ideas of what programming can be when you start to liberate yourself from the machine — if the source has a quirky voice, there always remains a soft spot in your heart for them, be it the Little Schemer, SICP or _why.
- partdavid 3y ago
  That's okay. Another senior DBA lived on a boat, so I took my DBAs over to his boat and we spent the afternoon, then went for a walk in the tony seaside town at which his boat was moored. We went to an art gallery. One of the pieces was a semi-abstract gradient, but the colors could definitely remind one of the sky, and the steely gray of the ocean. I loved the way you looked at it and kind of got lost in the middle. It "felt" like the ocean more than "looking" like the ocean to me. Another DBA was standing there looking at it and said, "I don't get it." "I'm not sure there's something to 'get', exactly." "Is there a boat or a person hidden in it? I can't find it." For this person, looking at a picture had to have a point--a subject. It was, on some level, a "Where's Waldo?" exercise and since he didn't solve the problem of finding Waldo, he didn't get it. But not everything's like that. It's okay to not like something. It's okay to not get it. You can still be a DBA. You can still have a picnic on the boat.
lquist 3y ago
I would argue that it is the only programming tutorial that could be called literature.

ornornor 3y ago

I never got it. Everyone says it’s fantastic, I feel like an idiot for absolutely not getting it at all when it came out and still not today.

esaym 3y ago
Seriously, same here.
gosukiwi 3y ago
Yeah not my thing either, I'd rather see a cheatsheet and a few examples lol
- anyfoo 3y ago
  You can't learn a programming language like that, unless it already has very similar paradigms to languages you already know. For example, try to learn APL[1] or Haskell like that (or just assembly if you haven't done any kind of assembly yet). [1] And that's not just because of the arcane symbols.
  - marginalia_nu 3y ago
    I think assembly is probably the one language family you'd find most success learning from a reference sheet.
    - anyfoo 3y ago
      Once you've been told what a register, a stack, and an addressing mode is (among other details), sure. But then you do know the paradigms already. But of the languages I mentioned, assembly is certainly the one where the required concepts can be explained quickest, probably by far...
    - Cerium 3y ago
      Yeah, sure - as long as that reference sheet is the CPU reference manual.
sillysaurusx 3y ago
For what it’s worth, I felt the same way, but never dared voice it. I think it’s worth appreciating as a thing of beauty. The raw talent required to make it is just incredible, and it probably takes a Rubyist to fully see the intricacies of what we’re meant to “get”. There’s a place for this kind of work, and it’s one of the delights of life that it exists at all.
eddieroger 3y ago
I did get it, and I would argue this book made me a better engineer. People learn different ways and retain knowledge differently. Some folks do really well with technical manuals and minimal but factual informational, and some folks respond better to more novel approaches. _why's guide was definitely the latter, and a vocal group of people seemed to agree. While _why's version was definitely on the far side of novel, the approach itself was used in a whole series[0] of books. It's all good that it wasn't your thing, and you're not an idiot, it just wasn't your style. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_First_(book_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_First_(book_series)
throw_pm23 3y ago
I loved it and found it super funny and inspiring. Never cared about Ruby though.
thom 3y ago
It was very much of a time and place, and obviously people are welcome to take or leave it. I certainly cringe that every language now seems to need its own twee, jokey, book-long tutorial, like Learn You a Haskell for Great Good and Clojure for the Brave and True. But Why’s (Poignant) Guide captured the playfulness and nostalgia for lost time that the Ruby community evoked for a lot of people back then, especially those that had grown up with computers but drifted into enterprise software and watched the joy of technology slowly seep out of their lives. Whether it's a good way to learn Ruby the language, I don't really remember.
- mjw1007 3y ago
  I don't think the jokey book-long tutorial is a new phenomenon. I learned Fortran in the 80s from the Fortran Coloring Book.
  - thom 3y ago
    I now also see Comic Pascal from 1984, fair enough.
    - steveklabnik 3y ago
      Computer Lib / Dream Machines, 1974.
  - kbutler 3y ago
    1981 Getting Started with TRS-80 Basic was also playful - https://archive.org/details/Getting_Started_with_TRS-80_Basic_1981_Tandy/page/n1/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/Getting_Started_with_TRS-80_Basi...
- dionidium 3y ago
  In case it makes anybody feel better, I was "around" at the time and I never got it, either. Tried to read it many times and never could finish.
preseinger 3y ago
it characterizes programming in a way that is basically incoherent to most stereotypical programmers (i agree with you, for the record, it was gobbledegook to me too) the question is: does programming represent some kind of subjective expression, or some kind of objective precision? why's little zine says it's the former, but that's not how i see it at all programming is, for me, like working on math problems, or balancing equations, it's strict and pure and precise, and that's what i love about it, there's no connection to anything like art, or writing (in the novel sense), or other kinds of subjective expression but for some people, programming is like art, or writing a novel, or in any case a subjective expression of some abstract idea (or ideas) that they have at least this is what i see as the discrepancy
- rahoulb 3y ago
  I always said "Python is like writing maths, ruby is like writing english"
  - preseinger 3y ago
    right! and, to build on that: people who see programming as maths understand it fundamentally differently than those who see it as prose, they approach every aspect of programming differently, evaluate "quality" on entirely different metrics, etc. in my experience, this is a major source of friction in programming teams, and deserves to be addressed more directly -- if i had it my way, i'd prefer that those who see programming as prose would be disabused of this incorrect notion, but i understand that this is my bias speaking, and not any objective truth :)
    - rahoulb 3y ago
      With Ruby I feel (feel being the operative word) like I’m free to get the computer to do what I want and create something that looks good and makes me happy. But in other languages I immediately feel cramped and constrained - and the code looks ugly to my eyes. As for correctness and quality, number one is it has to fulfil the business requirements I’m being paid for (and I’ve shipped lots of crappy code that I’m ashamed of but the clients are very happy) and secondary, I like to look back at it and see something elegant that also looks good in an editor. Of course, the definitions of elegant and “looks good” are the real questions here.
q845712 3y ago
I said this elsewhere too -- while in general I like things _like_ the poignant guide, and appreciate its existence, I never actually finished reading it. To me it's an interesting touchstone work showing/reminding that the "invisibly neutral" tone we've collectively adopted is still an editorial choice and cultural moment. I'm sure writing and communication styles will drift back and forth over the next few decades. Sometime soon (if not already) another generation of younger developers will coalesce around some document that feels authentically counter-cultural, like their own late-night jokes and dreams have been given just enough coherence to hook them in, and then I probably still won't get it because I'll be out of touch.... :)
JackFr 3y ago
Mostly the same, except I don’t feel like an idiot for not getting it. I thought it was self-indulgent and too clever by half. But I admit that’s just taste and not a measure of its objective worth. I have a theory about _why’s popularity though. I think a lot of it comes from the cohort of us who were strictly trained in a C/Fortran/Knuth Art of Computer Programming style old-school approach. When your first presented with the mind blowing ideas of what programming can be when you start to liberate yourself from the machine — if the source has a quirky voice, there always remains a soft spot in your heart for them, be it the Little Schemer, SICP or _why.
partdavid 3y ago
That's okay. Another senior DBA lived on a boat, so I took my DBAs over to his boat and we spent the afternoon, then went for a walk in the tony seaside town at which his boat was moored. We went to an art gallery. One of the pieces was a semi-abstract gradient, but the colors could definitely remind one of the sky, and the steely gray of the ocean. I loved the way you looked at it and kind of got lost in the middle. It "felt" like the ocean more than "looking" like the ocean to me. Another DBA was standing there looking at it and said, "I don't get it." "I'm not sure there's something to 'get', exactly." "Is there a boat or a person hidden in it? I can't find it." For this person, looking at a picture had to have a point--a subject. It was, on some level, a "Where's Waldo?" exercise and since he didn't solve the problem of finding Waldo, he didn't get it. But not everything's like that. It's okay to not like something. It's okay to not get it. You can still be a DBA. You can still have a picnic on the boat.

lquist 3y ago

I would argue that it is the only programming tutorial that could be called literature.