Im not into ruby and wasn’t familiar with _why until this post. From others’ comments, it sounds like he’s largely credited with the birth of the “fun” programming language tutorial. How horrible. Even as an absolute beginner, I always found those style of tutorials to be massive time wasters and tone-deaf. Your audience’s primary goal is to learn the language. Sure they might be more engaged if it has lighthearted quips here and there, but they quickly become way too dominant in most tutorials of this style and are only good for people that have a lot of free time to spend reading bad puns or hyper-contrived examples.[1]
I also skimmed his pdfs, which legitimately seem like a great piece of postmodern literature. In my hasty estimation, _why should have been focusing on literary pursuits from the start, so all in all, not a bad outcome.
I don’t have any opinion on his software for precisely the sort of reasons that seem to have driven him away from the profession of programmer. I have no need to know about ruby, and from a quick look all the tools are irrelevant to me. Programming (specifically of the OSS variety) is thankless and yes all the glories it tempts one with are dust. This is why people taking pride in being programmers has always confused me. Computer scientists, sure. Domain experts, sure. System designer, sure. But programmer? It’s essentially an overpaid but (currently) high demand job that’s not too hard about 90% of the time and is completely unglamorous. I never understood the appeal. If you code, you should only do it (like pretty much anything) because the activity itself stirs a sort of joy in you or because there’s some ulterior utility (money, you need the tool you're writing, etc.) in doing it.
[1] for a book that actually balances this style well, I’d suggest Deep C Secrets—part of the reason why it works is because much of the “fun” content is in asides and secondary to the main text, something a lot of other language tutorial writers have not figured out how to accomplish.
> This is why people taking pride in being programmers has always confused me.
What exactly does “taking pride in being programmers” means to you? I once read an article that was suggesting that one should call themselves a software developer and not a programmer. Maybe you mean it in that sense?
I take pride in being a programmer, but that is not a well defined statement and perhaps I mean something else by it than what you mean.
There is the machine and it is really really complicated. It can do a lot of things, but sometimes what it can do is not exactly what is needed. Then the users either put in a lot of elbow-grease to get what they want done, or worse they declare that it is impossible to achieve it and what is needed doesn’t get done. Then a programmer goes by and notices this. They see that something is done inefficiently, with a lot of pain to the users and the business, and the programmer says: “You know it doesn’t have to be this way. We can make the machine do the right thing for us. After all we are the masters of the machine, it should serve us, not the other way around.” And the users very often can’t believe this. They don’t think this way. They very often bug out their eyes and state that it cannot be done, because there is no time, or budget, or it is just simply impossible. And then the programmer sits down works a bit (10 minutes, or a week, or a month, depending on the complexity and the value of the problem) and shows them that it was not impossible. The machine didn’t serve us before and now it does. This is what it means to me to be a programer. You go around, find problems you can solve for people and you solve them.
Maybe you are a terrible hack who copy-pastes together scripts from stackoverflow until they kinda work, maybe you are a real engineer who can build elegant and well tested reliable solutions to hard problems. If you can make the computer work for you and master it you are a programmer in my book and I think you should feel proud of it.
My first post was poorly written. I didn't mean to imply that taking pride in a job well done was bad. I don't think it is. I think programmers have plenty of reason to be happy when they do good work[1]--what I think is foolish is having visions of grandeur when it comes to programming, which in my opinion is what _why seemed to have based on his reasoning for quitting. I could be way off mark, but that's my take.
I mentioned this in another comment, but I think it also has to do with a confusion of categories. _why seemed to want recognition akin to that received by, e.g. Thomas Bernhard, Kafka, for something like shoes or his other software/libraries or general contributions to computing. But the issue is these things will always be utilities for specialists, and any aesthetic properties they have (elegant design, expression, etc.) are secondary to their functioning and they'll always be relegated to the dusty realm of specialists since the code is not the product--the software is. One can write code to create an aesthetic object that is enjoyed and revered by the masses, but I have a hard time envisioning a future in which the masses will ever enjoy and revere code or engineering for its own sake.
Pride was the wrong word to use and one I lazily reached for. After reading your comment, you've helped me realize that what I advise against is misapplication of expectations to different categories of things. _why seemed to want an aesthetic reception and legacy on a general, popular scale for work that is ultimately only a utility to the vast majority of the population and indeed, not even accessible to the population, and even if it were, I don't think many people would admire programming libs for fun--such a hobby will remain the lot of only enthusiasts. There is no pop coding like there is pop music.
[1]: Though I'd also argue that much of what you state taking pride in is not programming--which is just expressing ideas in programming languages--what you are talking about is engineering/design, which can be done perfectly well and separately from the programming part. we just happen to solve a lot of problems with computers these days so we need to express solutions for computers to consume and we tend to blend those responsibilities (we'll one day get to a point where the computers do most of the programming and we just design https://github.com/nadia-polikarpova/synquid)
I agree on the first half but not the second. Most things a carpenter builds aren't going to last a century, but I wouldn't find it strange at all for him to take pride in them.
That's fair. I have no problem with someone taking pride in their work, what I take issue with is the sort of level of pride someone like _why seemed to expect to garner.
A local furniture maker will certainly take pride in a piece he's built, and his customer will rightly enjoy it. There's nothing wrong with this, let's call it "small-scale pride" or "contentment". Part of the motivation for such work is, beyond selling the furniture, probably some amount of joy in the craft itself--I think you'll find this joy pairs often with "small-scale pride" or contentment.
If you read _why's motivations for disappearing, however, his desires seem of a grander order. He writes about wanting to produce something that really lasts, and theres undercurrents of these products needing to be recognized widely and celebrated, even beyond the creator's lifetime. This is the sort of pride I meant in my first comment. I think it's foolish to chase this sort of highly external motivation and desire, particularly in the realm of programming, (it'd be similar, say, to wanting to acquire renown as a legendary accountant).
What I'm getting at is a sort of confusion between art and utility. _why seemed to want an artist's glory for what will always be a utility.
Sure, when we are programming and get into a "flow" state, we may feel transcendent, and enthusiasts may be able to have a deep appreciation for the work of others, but the general public, or mankind as a whole will never appreciate the products of programming (software) in the same way they do art. Furthermore, the part of the discipline that one could argue has some amount of aesthetics to it--writing "beautiful" source code (elegantly expressing in a language)--is not even a primary part of the end result (which is the software itself)[1], so it has even less of a chance of really being appreciated by anyone beyond specialists. I think this confusion, this ambition for glory, is what's foolish. Quite frankly it's a distraction in any field and usually a sign that you're pursuing something for the wrong reasons. I have no problem with someone taking pride in good work--it's this sort of ambition for a legacy in software that I find silly. Like anything else it's possible, but I feel it's a particularly hard thing to realize in the world of software--of course, it does happen, but even the majority of legends in computing that reach beyond the sphere of computing (which is partly what _why seemed to want on my reading) (e.g. Gates, Jobs, Stallman (even this is a stretch)--many computer scientists where the "general public" recognition factor quickly drops off) primarily are not known for programming.
[1]: Compare it with reading. One reads a book, in which the material of the work (the words) contribute directly to the aesthetic experiences of the work and which the reader directly engages with on consumption of the work. The aesthetic experience of the program is totally divorced from the consumption of the software, which of course may have its own, separate aesthetic dimension.
I'd like to second your recommendation of Deep C Secrets. I originally bought it purely for the title pun, but it is actually one of the better programming books I own ( and I have a lot ).
I also skimmed his pdfs, which legitimately seem like a great piece of postmodern literature. In my hasty estimation, _why should have been focusing on literary pursuits from the start, so all in all, not a bad outcome.
I don’t have any opinion on his software for precisely the sort of reasons that seem to have driven him away from the profession of programmer. I have no need to know about ruby, and from a quick look all the tools are irrelevant to me. Programming (specifically of the OSS variety) is thankless and yes all the glories it tempts one with are dust. This is why people taking pride in being programmers has always confused me. Computer scientists, sure. Domain experts, sure. System designer, sure. But programmer? It’s essentially an overpaid but (currently) high demand job that’s not too hard about 90% of the time and is completely unglamorous. I never understood the appeal. If you code, you should only do it (like pretty much anything) because the activity itself stirs a sort of joy in you or because there’s some ulterior utility (money, you need the tool you're writing, etc.) in doing it.
[1] for a book that actually balances this style well, I’d suggest Deep C Secrets—part of the reason why it works is because much of the “fun” content is in asides and secondary to the main text, something a lot of other language tutorial writers have not figured out how to accomplish.