Post #166,539
7/28/04 10:13:39 PM
|
I love this guy
He hits all my hot spots, programmer
differences, tools, coding for fun, the
evils of Windows, crappy languages, etc.
[link|http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html|http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html]
The description of the difference between
the amount of leverage the chosen tools
matches what I wrote a while ago, and
for the same reason!
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=39207|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=39207]
And he certainly hit the nail on the gut
wrenching we get when being forced to work
in a crappy NT environment.
Perl / Python VS the rest of the world are
right on as well (at least for THIS Perl
coder).
|
Post #166,552
7/28/04 11:10:47 PM
|
He is very observant.
Whilst reading that, sometimes I felt like a non-programmer and sometimes I felt like merely a good programmer.
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
Post #166,559
7/28/04 11:32:39 PM
|
I love this line
VCs are mistaken to look for the next Microsoft, because no startup can be the next Microsoft unless some other company is prepared to bend over at just the right moment and be the next IBM. ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #166,561
7/28/04 11:39:30 PM
|
Re: I love this line
Well that's a vast oversimplification of what actually happened. IBM screwed themselves, and didn't need to bend over to do it. Microsoft happened to be there at the right time with the right asshole in charge. Even after the squandered opportunity to own DOS they could have easily blown Windows away by pricing PS/2s aggressively and opening up OS/2 to external developers.
I can't see what's so interesting about this screed. Mainly he's saying "my preferences are those of all elites, and I am elite." I found it sort of annoying.
-drl
|
Post #166,577
7/29/04 12:46:43 AM
|
Well of course
Both on the over-simplification and the "my preferences are those of the elites" issue. It does fit the mold of telling your audience that the traits they believe themselves to possess are actually signs of greatness. Who wouldn't want to believe that.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #166,580
7/29/04 1:01:13 AM
|
roomy scores again
He's brought up a very interesting point...
Why is our industry so fucked up?
Programmers. In the screed, the little jaggof can't even be bothered to sit in a cubicle.
I sincerely believe this. The better the programmer the more dangerous, because great programmers (and at least one indifferent one) are intolerant of bullshit. The desire for control becomes so powerful that bad alternatives become intolerable. That's OK, that's how it should be.
But the programmers made a bad mistake. Instead of being willful enough to force the right ideas into the clear air, they sit around and piss and moan about how shitty everything is, and then eventually succumb to the bullshit. Instead of getting into management where they can effect change, they remain in tech positions because there is no risk - they are guaranteed control in their own realm, even if it means controlling a horrible kluged idiom. There's a good reason for this - speaking up could get you fired, because IT people are basically assholes, and would rather pinkslip than fight back, or worse, lose.
Programmers have allowed our industry to degenerate into shitwork. Remember that screed you posted on why we drink? There was a lot of truth in that. Spoiled brats who do it because they can.
The passive-agressive (management makes specs) anal aspect of programming attracts people with no aggressive will to fight for what is right. So we get shit on. And we put up with it. (OK I'm a little white whine drunk.)
The blood of our ruined industry is on our own hands.
-drl
|
Post #166,582
7/29/04 1:12:24 AM
|
Read Peopleware
Unless real estate goes for truly absurd prices, and your programmers are hired at way below market, it is in your financial interest to put programmers in real offices. A brief interruption costs a programmer 15 minutes or more of productivity. This increased productivity way more than offsets the extra cost.
Unfortunately defending this point against office politics tends to be hard. But companies that do manage that get a good return on their investment.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #166,583
7/29/04 1:21:27 AM
|
Re: Read Peopleware
I'd work in the closet to be part of an APL or FORTH team, and my productivity would decline by an infinitesimal amount, if any. I'd be horribly unproductive in shidioms with a penthouse overlooking the ocean. It's the beauty and elegance of the "nice solution" that are compelling.
-drl
|
Post #166,670
7/29/04 3:12:12 PM
|
And you're missing the point
Working in a closet your interruption rate would be cut down. It is far from an ideal environment, but it is better than being interrupted all of the time in a noisy cubicle environment.
Working in a "status office" has its own productivity drawbacks. For instance any decent developer would prefer to have a desk with lots of space rather than the fancy wood desk. Or another whiteboard instead of the status picture hanging on the wall.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #166,672
7/29/04 3:21:29 PM
|
Re: And you're missing the point
Hmm, I've worked in lots of cubicles and as a contractor, considered myself fortunate to have one. I've sometimes worked from a folding church table.
Right now I'd work from the throne in a crowded bathroom.
-drl
|
Post #166,589
7/29/04 2:51:42 AM
|
I wonder if that is universally true.
I recall a story about id Software some years ago. The programmers all had their own offices and retreated to them ostensibly for programming - except productivity was terrible. Someone - I don't remember who - decided they should be all together on open plan desks; i.e. no walls at all. The justification was that individual offices stifled too much communication. Once moved, the programmers were coding more and better and enjoying things more.
I've also programmed in an open-plan environment. On my own, headphones and my choice of music are a great way to isolate, but that's not possible when pair-programming. OTOH, two pairs pair-programming in the same room can and will distract each other.
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
Post #166,680
7/29/04 4:38:49 PM
|
It depends on the people
Closed offices can be a productive environment - or an excuse to goof off. And people do need to cooperate with each other.
For me the approach of using music is awful - music that is enough to block out others is enough to kill my concentration. YMMV.
Your comment on 2 pairs pair-programming in the same room is classic. Noise is not an interruption when it relates to what you're doing. It is an interruption when it is about something other than what you want to focus on.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #166,702
7/29/04 8:38:42 PM
|
Music works for me.
It must be the musician inside. :-) I do know that it is when I'm playing in a band that I most want to play around with my synth's programming...
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
Post #166,717
7/29/04 10:10:46 PM
|
Peopleware lists an interesting experiment on that
The took a group of students, and asked which ones liked working to music versus didn't. They then subdivided each into two groups, one of whom had to do a programming exercise in a room with music playing, and once of whom worked in a silent room.
They found no statistically significant difference between the performance of people depending on presence of preference for music.
BUT there was a trick! The problem involved a series of complex manipulations that simplified down to "give me back what I started with". All of the people who noticed that were in the quiet room.
The preliminary conclusion is that music doesn't harm productivity, but does hinder creativity.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #166,720
7/29/04 10:16:58 PM
|
Re: Peopleware lists an interesting experiment on that
Plato considered music as almost evil, that it would inflame the passions and cloud the mind:
[link|http://www.tesc.edu/~rprice/platomus.htm|http://www.tesc.edu/~rprice/platomus.htm]
-drl
|
Post #166,729
7/30/04 12:22:05 AM
|
I buy that
If I'm coding something and I know where I'm going - putting on a really grooving playlist will result in me banging the thing out in record time.
But I can't create like that - I often need to get out of the usual environment and sit with pad of paper and pencil to work things out. Don't need a computer when doing deep conceptualization.
Actually, taking a shower or hitting the hot tub often helps here.
That was lovely cheese.
--Wallace, The Wrong Trousers
|
Post #166,730
7/30/04 12:26:48 AM
|
night
I can't do physics during the day. Don't know why.
I tend not to care about ambience, as long as I'm comfortable.
-drl
|
Post #166,736
7/30/04 1:11:55 AM
|
*That's* what's missing from my office--a hot tub!
"Despite the seemingly endless necessity for doing
so, it's actually not possible to reverse-engineer intended invariants
from staring at thousands of lines of code (not in C, and not in
Python code either)." Tim Peters on python-dev
|
Post #166,770
7/30/04 12:03:13 PM
|
My last SF job was next to health club
And HR negotiated cheap memberships for employees - and since I was living on a boat at the time I joined largely to have another shower I could use. But I also found the steam room useful for having a think.
That was lovely cheese.
--Wallace, The Wrong Trousers
|
Post #166,715
7/29/04 10:02:37 PM
|
Keep in mind also
One thing to keep in mind when comparing these sorts of stories is that studied have shown that any change in a work environment is liable to increase productivity over the short term. The break in the old patterns of working tends to make people think and concentrate on their work more, which causes a short term rise in production.*
Jay
* And before some PHP thinks about it, it doesn't work over the long term. After a enough changes in short a short period of time the employees are numb to the changes and output will fall even further.
|
Post #166,718
7/29/04 10:11:27 PM
|
Ah yes, the infamous Hawthorne effect
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #166,652
7/29/04 1:40:06 PM
|
Where to begin
Instead of getting into management where they can effect change, they remain in tech positions because there is no risk. There's a glass ceiling over top tech types. You are actively prevented from moving (on, up, over, anything) because the clueless manager views you as his golden goose. I've been trying to move to management for about 6 years. Occasionally I met with some success. However.... speaking up could get you fired, because IT people are basically assholes, and would rather pinkslip than fight back, or worse, lose. And it has - a couple times now. Most recently I was fired from CheapBastards (ok - tickets) because I disgreed (quietly and privately) with the "architect" and I got canned. The conversation went something like this: VP: We're going to have to part company. Some of your team mates have complained that you're not making your deliverables. ME: I've made every concrete deliverable I've been assigned since I got here. VP: That's not what your team mates say. ME: Which ones. VP: I can't say. ME: OK, name a deliverable I've missed. VP: Oh, I don't have any specifics. ME: Did I not complete the previous project OK? VP: This isn't about that. ME: OK, is there another team that would value my contributions? VP: No. ME: Fine. I'm outta here. As manager I've had subordinates complain to my superiors when I didn't select "standard" technologies (because they figured it wouldn't help their resumes any). A lot of the problem is our so-called pundits/leaders. The fuck wads that write articles for Java Developer, Artima, and so on. They create a culture of faddishness that undermines sound engineering practice. The other problem is the complete lack of knowledge of history of the craft. Nothing is new, just a little different. The churn keeps the software vendors in business. Planned Obsolesence is alive and well in the software world.
That was lovely cheese.
--Wallace, The Wrong Trousers
|
Post #166,677
7/29/04 4:11:46 PM
|
You reminded me of one thing that was not mentioned.
Technical expertise is a wasting asset. Take a look [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=166636|the salary survey link] I posted in Jobs. People with over 10 years experience are not getting raises.
A certain percentage of your time as an employee must be allocated to maintaining your professional status. For example reading industry/technical magazines, dead tree or on line versions, attending courses and seminars, etc.
I figure about 10% of your time should be spent that way. If you are a contractor, you probably need to do this on your own time.
Alex
"If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said." -- Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman
|
Post #166,681
7/29/04 4:41:03 PM
|
How long have you been in the industry?
A certain percentage of your time as an employee must be allocated to maintaining your professional status. For example reading industry/technical magazines, dead tree or on line versions, attending courses and seminars, etc.
I figure about 10% of your time should be spent that way. (Staying away from hard numerical suggestions) I'd say that percentage needs to rise as you spend more time in the industry. The natural progression I notice is: 1) Courses/seminars: 3-5 years behind (OK, be fair, sometimes 10 ;). 2) Books: 2-3 years behind. 3) Tech magazines: 1-2 years behind. 4) Real conversations (with Graham's "great hackers"): 6 months behind. 5) Build it yourself. :) But each move closer to "now" means less distillation by those before you, and more personal time required to filter/integrate the info. I've only been doing IT (professionally) for six years; I can't remember the last time I read a tech magazine article whose content wasn't 'obvious' (due to personal constant exposure). I haven't bought tech books in over a year (OK, you got me, I just bought Fowler's _Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture_, but there wasn't anything new in it (which he warned me about in the foreword, but I bought it anyway)). Seminars were never interesting. I'm done rambling, so I'm just going to peter out there without a conclusion. :)
|
Post #166,705
7/29/04 8:49:49 PM
|
A decade longer than you've been alive. :)
Alex
"If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said." -- Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman
|
Post #166,706
7/29/04 9:06:35 PM
|
"Stow it sonny" :)
-drl
|
Post #166,735
7/30/04 1:09:47 AM
|
That's the generic "you" :)
And no, I'm not 24. ;)
"Despite the seemingly endless necessity for doing
so, it's actually not possible to reverse-engineer intended invariants
from staring at thousands of lines of code (not in C, and not in
Python code either)." Tim Peters on python-dev
|
Post #166,756
7/30/04 10:17:07 AM
|
You're 32, if you haven't had a birthday since January.
Alex
"If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said." -- Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman
|
Post #166,764
7/30/04 11:03:54 AM
|
Off-by-one somewhere in your math. ;) 33
"Despite the seemingly endless necessity for doing
so, it's actually not possible to reverse-engineer intended invariants
from staring at thousands of lines of code (not in C, and not in
Python code either)." Tim Peters on python-dev
|
Post #166,786
7/30/04 1:36:11 PM
|
Duly noted! :)
Alex
"If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said." -- Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman
|
Post #166,576
7/29/04 12:45:08 AM
|
You might enjoy an audio interview of his I heard today
[link|http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail164.html|http://www.itconvers...ws/detail164.html]
|
Post #166,602
7/29/04 8:57:57 AM
|
Downloaded
Thanks
|
Post #166,625
7/29/04 10:51:44 AM
|
Excellent read!
Alex
"If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said." -- Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman
|
Post #166,824
7/30/04 6:03:37 PM
|
Oh, that hurts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To do something well you have to love it. So to the extent you can preserve hacking as something you love, you're likely to do it well. Try to keep the sense of wonder you had about programming at age 14. If you're worried that your current job is rotting your brain, it probably is.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
--
"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."
-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
|
Post #166,827
7/30/04 6:31:09 PM
|
Please learn before u do
I would like to add my opinion on this article ...
First, I really hate the cynical theme,
great hackers are the few etc... etc...
Yea, I dont disagree, great ppl are few everywhere
replace ppl by hackers, models, doctors ...
depends on what you mean by great ...
I believe the real point was that there is a gap
but then, that doesnt answer
why is the gap between good and great, in hackers
is bigger then the gap between good and great, in doctors
And by the way I do think the Jeep wrangler, cadillac, thunderbird, firebird ...
are all pretty nice cars, yeaaaa sure if you compare then to
ferrari maybe they wont be great
but whatever dude ... they are pretty nice cars
why make such an obsene generalization that american cars are ugly
why is this clicher statement so popular and why do so many
ppl take it for granted ...
and what type of person would repeat such a statement
a stereotypical, discriminating statement
TOYOTA RULES JOOOOO!!!!!
And, why are software companies dooomed
Sun have billions
Oracle have billions
IBM ... billions
Microsoft BILLIONS
BEA .... $$$$$$
Red-Hat .... $$
and many many many maaaaaaaaaaaany more software firms
are making pretty decent money
so where is exactly the problem, why was he crying
what did he want to show
office space:
DUUUHHH
but then of course we allowed him to call american cars sucks
so yea, why not enlighten us about the importance of quietness in
office space
that is a small section in my MIS book about the importance
of egronomics in the office spaces
there are books writing on its ... okay many not books ... but at least
chapters
egronomics is a science of its own
management is a science too
marketing is also a real thing
just read them please
I know I know , they are big, each one of these books will average a 600 pages
but please take the time to read them
it's really scary how many ppl will prefer to read a 13 page article
and call it interesting, and refuse to read about the real deal in a 600 pages
book
don't u ppl believe in science !!!!
but then, yea maybe
many ppl do, before they learn
and learn as they do
if they only try to learn before they do
and learn more as they do
and refuse to do, if they havent learned
i remember reading comments for a dude on this forum
who taught a c++ class
one, he hates c++
two, he dont know c++ that well
so why does he teach c++
i dont know
yea, i hope u read it
i hate u
and the likes of u
and the ppl who answer to u
not telling u
get a clue
before u teach the class
and ruin the little kids
who trusted u
to have a clue
many ppl like u
made my life a nightmare
teacher who just read the chapter before they came into the class
please learn before u do
c++ in not ur problem
you are the problem
I do believe that the gap between most good doctors and great doctors
good hackers and great hackers
is education ... good educations
time and time again
paul graham, spit his poison
and try to make his point that its a talent
its luck
and ignores the importance of education and learning
to use c++ well, to teach c++ well
you need to learn more then just c++
well, i dont want to put too much high standard for you
but you also need to learn about being a good teacher
which u can also learn from books about teaching
but how many ppl will read about teaching before teaching
i dont know
hehhhh
i can go for ever, but i think i made my point clear, well enough
i think i have a talent
tell me what talent that is?
|
Post #166,830
7/30/04 7:36:10 PM
|
Your talent is rambling, apparently (new thread)
Created as new thread #166829 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=166829|Your talent is rambling, apparently]
"Despite the seemingly endless necessity for doing
so, it's actually not possible to reverse-engineer intended invariants
from staring at thousands of lines of code (not in C, and not in
Python code either)." Tim Peters on python-dev
|
Post #166,836
7/30/04 9:10:08 PM
7/30/04 9:14:02 PM
|
Re: Please learn before u do
i remember reading comments for a dude on this forum
who taught a c++ class
one, he hates c++
two, he dont know c++ that well If you're referring to Todd Blanchard, he knows C++ a hell of a lot better than most people do. He also knows what he doesn't know, which is a sign of someone who really knows their shit. As far as why he would teach something he doesn't like: everyone needs a paycheck. This is something you'll come to understand with experience as well. Books are good things. Books are not the end-all and be-all of learning. Most of us here have a decade or more of experience in the real world. I myself have been programming for 23 years. Education and learning are good things as well. But in this field (once you've actually been in it, my young friend) you learn pretty quickly that there are programmers, and then there are wizards. The difference isn't education. Computer theory is a science. Software design is as much of an art as it is science, at this point. Which you would understand if you pulled your nose out of a book occasionally... Might I suggest you work on your writing style a bit, as well. Your post is exceedingly difficult to follow. Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Edited by admin
July 30, 2004, 09:14:02 PM EDT
|
Post #166,837
7/30/04 9:16:21 PM
|
Troll much?
|
Post #166,841
7/30/04 9:28:11 PM
|
Nah
His (I assume he) historical posts show an affinity for tech while really doing business courses. Which means he's a forever wannabe.
And now he's using leet speak for the fun of it.
Kind of sad.
|
Post #166,840
7/30/04 9:27:37 PM
|
And what would your background be?
Marketing is a science? Management is a science? Learning teaching from a book? Are we living in the same universe?
--
"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."
-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
|
Post #166,857
7/31/04 12:38:55 AM
|
Drivel.
And illiterate drivel at that.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #167,226
8/3/04 2:25:38 AM
|
He bashes the hell out of OO too!
[link|http://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html|http://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html]
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #167,363
8/3/04 7:04:22 PM
|
You can't please everybody
From the History of Smalltalk by Alan Kay
"The biggest hit for me while at SAIL in late '69 was to really understand LISP. Of course, every student knew about car, cdr, and cons, but Utah was impoverished in that no one there used LISP and hence, no one had penetrated the mysteries of eval and apply. I could hardly belive how beautiful and wonderful the idea of LISP was. I say it this way because LISP had not only been around enough to get some honest barnacles, but worse, there were deep flaws in its logical foundations. By this, I mean that the pure language was supposed to be based on functions, but its most important components -- such as lambda expressions, quotes, and conds--were not functions at all and instead were called special forms. Landin and others had been able to get quotes and conds in terms of lambda by tricks that were variously clever and useful, but the flaw remained in the jewel."
So I guess you can't please everybody.
That was lovely cheese.
--Wallace, The Wrong Trousers
|
Post #167,435
8/4/04 10:01:04 AM
8/4/04 10:15:11 AM
|
Re: He bashes the hell out of OO too!
My own feeling is that object-oriented programming is a useful technique in some cases, but it isn't something that has to pervade every program you write. You should be able to define new types, but you shouldn't have to express every program as the definition of new types. Yup, that's quite a bashing... I personally have never needed object-oriented abstractions. Common Lisp has an enormously powerful object system and I've never used it once. I've done a lot of things (e.g. making hash tables full of closures) that would have required object-oriented techniques to do in wimpier languages, but I have never had to use CLOS. I remember reading once where someone described objects as a "poor man's closure". So should one consider a hash table full of closures an object oriented design or a functional design? I found the link to that quote: [link|http://www.ai.mit.edu/~gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg03277.html|http://www.ai.mit.ed...tml/msg03277.html] (Edited to add link)
Edited by johnu
Aug. 4, 2004, 10:15:11 AM EDT
|
