Re: A Link of note

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Paul Schlyter writes ...
> 
> In article <3950EF57.D8727C4A@swbell.net>,
> Rubywand  <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
> > Paul Schlyter writes ...
> >
> >> In my book, a "computer user" is someone who does *not* write his own
> >> programs, but only uses software written by others.
> >
> > I like the portrayal of "user" in the movie "Tron" better. A "user" is
> > someone who uses computers to do stuff, including to write programs. This
> > also matches the generally understood meaning of "small computer user"
> > going back to the late 1970's.
> 
> So someone who uses a computer to create software, just for the enjoyment
> of creating software, is a "computer user", not a "computer hobbyist"?
>

     If all you do with the computer is create software for the fun of
creating software, then your Computer Use = your Hobby. Most people would be
likely to call you a "computer hobbyist"-- not so unreasonable. It would be
more accurate to just say you create software as a hobby.

     If you do some non-hobby things with the computer-- e.g. play adventure
games, print our letters, etc.-- then "computer hobbyist" would not fit so
well. The more non-hobby time you spend using the computer, the poorer the
fit.


 
> Then what about someone who uses a computer to create hardware, e.g.
> another computer?  He might be running CAD programs to create the
> layout of his motherboard, or even the mask for his CPU chip (yes,
> this is today possible to do for a determined enthusiast who is not
> too poor)?  All if it just for the joy of doing it.  Is such a person
> a "computer user" or a "computer hobbyist"?
>

     The above is a good example of fiddling with computers for the enjoyment
of the fiddling. You would be a computer hobbyist. Since you probably use your
main computer for something else, you would also be a user.

 
> 
> Now if creating computer hardware as a hobby makes someone a "computer
> hobbyist" rather than "computer user", why wouldn't it be the same for
> someone creating computer software?

     As noted above, that is a possibility. Still, you must admit that it is
unlikely that someone will choose to use his/her computer in only one way. So,
it makes better sense to say that whatever hobby thing they do is the hobby--
e.g. a "hobby programmer"-- rather than insist upon implying that everything
they do with computers is part of some "computer hobby".

     The reason "computer hobbyist" hardly ever fits anything but hardware
stuff is fairly obvious. That is, until you actually have a computer you want
to spend time writing programs for (or use for running programs you buy),
there is not much to do except mess around with various hardware projects, do
speed tests, experiment with sound output and displays, interface disk drives,
... . The focus of your activities is the computer itself.

     From the early 1970's up through the early 1980's there were quite a few
'experimenters' who continuously fiddled with hardware as described above.
They looked forward to the "development package" for each new microprocessor--
e.g. KIM, PACE, 8086, SCMP, COSMAC, 80000, 68000, ...-- and designed and
redesigned their computer setups with little real interest in actually
finishing the thing and using it. These were the true "computer hobbyists".




> 
> >>> There is a natural tendency to lump the years 1975-1977 together and
> >>> think of them as the Byte-Altair-SWTP- ... pre-Apple II
> >>> times when everyone was fiddling with S-100 boards.
> >>> However, it just is not the case. By 1977, bunches of
> >>> complete small computer systems (OSI, TRS-80, ...) running
> >>> high-level languages, including BASIC, were being sold, many with disk
> >>> drives.
> >>
> >> Yes, but these computers had almost no end-user software.
> >
> > Not so. By 1977 there was quite a lot, more for some brands and models
> > than others.
> 
> Perhaps we define "end user" differenyl here.  The software available
> in 1977 did, with almost no exception, require the ability of tinkering
> for the one who would want to use it and get the most out of it.  Such
> a person is not in my eyes an "end user" -- he's a "computer hobbyist".
>

     Depends upon your perspective. Apple II users (and most other small
computer users) routinely tinkered with software; and, most did at least some
programming. The level of user involvement declined through the 1980's. By the
early 1990's we were pretty close your no-involvement model for "users".

     The Apple II was scheduled to end up as another 'dumb user' platform. The
absence of a good IIgs BASIC together with sketchy IIgs documentation made it
difficult for the typical user to produce decent IIgs software. Magazines
which tried to guide users in software creation finally just gave up. More and
more, nuts & bolts pieces on hardware and programming were shunned in favor of
glitz, commentaries, and general "features".

     It's too bad that Apple dropped II series support; but, Apple's exit did
derail the 'Dumb User Express'. Left on our own, there was no choice but to
become informed about hardware and software. And, with nearly zero offerings
from big name software makers, there has been no choice but to develop our own
software.

     Actually, today, we are closer to the original concept of "user" than at
any time since the introduction of the IIgs.


 ....
> 
> > A user might need to write a program for some special application or to
> > handle some task better than existing software did. But, then, this was
> > true five years later and is still true today.
> 
> Except that the domain of what "no available software does well" is
> shrinking all the time.
>

     For PC users, yes. Apple II users, however, face rapidly expanding
possibilities-- i.e. goals which remain to be achieved. A good example is
interest in developing the hardware and software needed in order to have a
full-featured net browser.

     While we do, indeed, have more software to do more things than ever
before, the area 'marked' "what no available software does well" has been
expanding, not shrinking. A major step in closing the gap will be enhanced
hardware.



 
> >> that makes them developers, not users.
> >
> > It makes them users who develop some piece of software. The term
> > "developer" usually applies to someone who creates a lot of software
> > which is distributed and used by others.
> 
> I've never seen any quantity requirements before like that.  So you
> claim no-one is a developer until he's developed X pieces of software
> which has been distributed?  Now, what numerical value would you
> want to assign to X?  And why that value and not another value?
>

     No particular number, just a perception that someone produces 'a lot' of
useful software or, perhaps, a few very useful pieces of software.


 
> >> If they did it for free, at their spare time, then it was a hobby.
> >
> > Model railroading is a hobby. Writing a program is programming.
> 
> One can as well say:
> 
> "Writing a program is a hobby.  Model railroading is model railroading".
>

     One could; but, one would probably be mistaken.


> What criterion are you using to determine which is a hobby and which isn't?
>
 ....


Hobby

o- a reasonably well-defined area of activity

o- done chiefly for the pleasure of doing

o- done more or less routinely (i.e. not a one-shot activity)

o- allows for development of special expertise in the activity

o- produces tangible products/results (e.g. railroad layout improvements,
growing stamp collection, ...)

o- has no clear end point (i.e. can be engaged in time after time)


     About the only way "writing a program" could be a hobby is for the
program to be some large untertaking-- perhaps a major adventure game-- you
fiddle with from time to time for fun with no particular drive to finish.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 ....
 
> Interestingly, in Victorian England, amateurs/hobbyists were looked
> upon with esteem, while professionals were despised.  How come?
> Well, remember that the upper class at this time despised work
> and though that no noble person should have to do any work at all.
> Now, an amateur/hobbyist was usually a gentleman who did something
> for the love of the subject.  A professional, on the other hand,
> was a worker....
>
 ....

     Something of that flavor comes through in the Sherlock Holmes stories and
in the earlier books by Sax Rohmer. 

     Of course, today, work is regarded as a good thing. Working at something
implies commitment to finishing and a desire to produce quality results.
 



Rubywand