3 ms·

The problem is: there's too many manuals. We don't have time to read them all. In fact, I think one of the skills you learn as you gain experience in software

The problem is: there's too many manuals. We don't have time to read them all. In fact, I think one of the skills you learn as you gain experience in software development is choosing your moments. When you can just google it, and when you need to get a cup of coffee and RTFM.

jeremysmyth 12y ago
...which suggests that computing is not too easy at all, as per grandparent comment. See also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm... : During my first Microsoft internship, I wrote string libraries to run on the Macintosh... Everything I did was right from K&R -- one thin book about the C programming language. Today, to work on CityDesk, I need to know Visual Basic, COM, ATL, C++, InnoSetup, Internet Explorer internals, regular expressions, DOM, HTML, CSS, and XML. All high level tools compared to the old K&R stuff, but I still have to know the K&R stuff or I'm toast.
- shiggerino 12y ago
  This is why Common Lisp is such a godsend for me. It covers a much wider gamut from low to high level than most languages. The Lisp Machines were really on to something, users didn't really have to know a lot of languages or competing systems. They also ensured good access to documentation. This is also two areas where the Macintosh failed (perhaps intentionally). Though Hypercard was extensible through XCMDs and XFCNs, It was a huge leap from HyperCard to the Macintosh Toolbox, not just in difficulty, but also because of the tools and documentation simply didn't exist on most people's Macintoshes, and was very expensive to buy.
  - cafard 12y ago
    What was the price of a Macintosh, though, compared to that of a Lisp Machine?
    - shiggerino 12y ago
      $49,900 for a Symbolics 3620 [1], $9,995 for a Lisa [2], $2,495 for a Macintosh 128k [3]. Affordability was a big priority with the Macintosh, and I'm thoroughly impressed what they managed to do with so little resources. So obviously, a Lisp Machine environment was far out of reach of even most experts at the time. However things progressed and I wouldn't be surprised if a PPC 604 box could run circles around a 3620. (If there's an actual Symbolics user here, please correct me if I'm wrong) So while impossible for consumers in the 80s it was certainly possible in the 90s. It's interesting to think about what if things had happened differently. Perhaps we would be sitting here posting from Copland and programming in Dylan today. Or probably not since in that case they would be bankrupt by now. But that reminds me, I think I have a pirated Copland beta laying around somewhere that I never got around to try. I seem to remember you needed two PowerMacs connected by serial cable, with one running a debugger, for it to work. 1. http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102713428 http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102713428 2. http://www.apple-history.com/lisa http://www.apple-history.com/lisa 3. http://www.apple-history.com/128k http://www.apple-history.com/128k
      - lispm 12y ago
        The only problem: you could not do anything with a Mac 128k. Especially not development. Things looked much brighter with the Mac II. But even there you needed expensive 32MB or more RAM, a disk with VM, a large screen, an Ethernet card, a graphics card, for a useful setup. Plus a license of MCL. In sum that was cheaper than a Symbolics, though. Performance was okay for the time, but started to look better with 68040 machines - given that they had lots of memory. The PPC 604 was appearing when Lisp Machines were already long dead. I don't think in real life single CPU 604s machines were that great.
        shiggerino 12y ago
        Yes, early Mac development was done on Lisas. I think the later more capable Macs were similarly priced. What I meant when I brought up the PPC 604 is that by the mid-90s cost of hardware was no longer a big issue in providing users with powerful computing environments. But it's clear that power isn't really what sells. Not even to developers, if you look at some of the more brain-dead environments and languages out there.

jeremysmyth 12y ago

...which suggests that computing is not too easy at all, as per grandparent comment. See also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm... : During my first Microsoft internship, I wrote string libraries to run on the Macintosh... Everything I did was right from K&R -- one thin book about the C programming language. Today, to work on CityDesk, I need to know Visual Basic, COM, ATL, C++, InnoSetup, Internet Explorer internals, regular expressions, DOM, HTML, CSS, and XML. All high level tools compared to the old K&R stuff, but I still have to know the K&R stuff or I'm toast.

shiggerino 12y ago
This is why Common Lisp is such a godsend for me. It covers a much wider gamut from low to high level than most languages. The Lisp Machines were really on to something, users didn't really have to know a lot of languages or competing systems. They also ensured good access to documentation. This is also two areas where the Macintosh failed (perhaps intentionally). Though Hypercard was extensible through XCMDs and XFCNs, It was a huge leap from HyperCard to the Macintosh Toolbox, not just in difficulty, but also because of the tools and documentation simply didn't exist on most people's Macintoshes, and was very expensive to buy.
- cafard 12y ago
  What was the price of a Macintosh, though, compared to that of a Lisp Machine?
  - shiggerino 12y ago
    $49,900 for a Symbolics 3620 [1], $9,995 for a Lisa [2], $2,495 for a Macintosh 128k [3]. Affordability was a big priority with the Macintosh, and I'm thoroughly impressed what they managed to do with so little resources. So obviously, a Lisp Machine environment was far out of reach of even most experts at the time. However things progressed and I wouldn't be surprised if a PPC 604 box could run circles around a 3620. (If there's an actual Symbolics user here, please correct me if I'm wrong) So while impossible for consumers in the 80s it was certainly possible in the 90s. It's interesting to think about what if things had happened differently. Perhaps we would be sitting here posting from Copland and programming in Dylan today. Or probably not since in that case they would be bankrupt by now. But that reminds me, I think I have a pirated Copland beta laying around somewhere that I never got around to try. I seem to remember you needed two PowerMacs connected by serial cable, with one running a debugger, for it to work. 1. http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102713428 http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102713428 2. http://www.apple-history.com/lisa http://www.apple-history.com/lisa 3. http://www.apple-history.com/128k http://www.apple-history.com/128k
    - lispm 12y ago
      The only problem: you could not do anything with a Mac 128k. Especially not development. Things looked much brighter with the Mac II. But even there you needed expensive 32MB or more RAM, a disk with VM, a large screen, an Ethernet card, a graphics card, for a useful setup. Plus a license of MCL. In sum that was cheaper than a Symbolics, though. Performance was okay for the time, but started to look better with 68040 machines - given that they had lots of memory. The PPC 604 was appearing when Lisp Machines were already long dead. I don't think in real life single CPU 604s machines were that great.
      - shiggerino 12y ago
        Yes, early Mac development was done on Lisas. I think the later more capable Macs were similarly priced. What I meant when I brought up the PPC 604 is that by the mid-90s cost of hardware was no longer a big issue in providing users with powerful computing environments. But it's clear that power isn't really what sells. Not even to developers, if you look at some of the more brain-dead environments and languages out there.