Re: not enough real programmers? (was Re: Byte Magazine: 18 Vintage issues, 1985-1986)

[lucvdv@null.net (Luc Van der Veken)]

Howard S Shubs posted:

> A person who knows how to "navigate", as you call it, doesn't need to
> modify the environment.

Methinks you're putting the customizing geeks at the wrong end of
the spectrum.  A person who doesn't even know how to navigate his
environment, certainly won't succeed in customizing it.  OTOH,
one who finds his way around it blindfolded standing on one foot
will not only be more productive because of that already, but
he'll also know the weak points, and after tweaking them out
he'll be even more productive.

> In article <xlxu2q9x13g.fsf@gold.cis.ohio-state.edu>, Matt Curtin
> <cmcurtin@interhack.net> wrote:
> 
> >Those who in it for the hack tend to be the best and most focused
> >programmers.  This is especially true when dealing with languages that 
> >have emerged from the open source community or have strong ties to it: 
> >Perl, Python, Lisp, etc.

Exactly (though not my languages), because those languages and
the whole open source community were created by "those who are in
it for the hack" (and not the other way around).

> They also tend to be young.  Some of us have gotten to the point where
> enough stuff has been thrown at us that we know that there's more to life
> than computers, hacking, and pizza.

Perl, Python, Lisp, and young - all in a single breath?
You were surely talking about Neil Young (maybe the others were
Perl Crosby, Python Stills and Lisp Nash? ;-)

Seriously, Lisp is about my age - which makes it 10 or 11 years
old when C,S,N&Y were singing at Woodstock.
Perl and Python may be young enough to be Lisp's children, but
that doesn't make them "youngsters stuff": I'm thinking about
(haven't decided yet) starting to learn Java right now, and
that's a tad younger yet.

(Not that there's nothing else to life - you're right about
that.)

> >Your AOL-style "LOL" indicates that you not only fail to understand
> >the significance of open source, but you do not understand the
> >difference between "without cost" and "open source".  One needn't work 
> >sans pay in order to make one's source code available.

Matt, here I don't understand you anymore.  You had some pretty
good arguments, and now you go spoil it all.

<snip> 
> Just because it's Open Source doesn't mean it's -good quality- code, nor
> that it's particularly useful.

Now I agree.
There's an argument that open source creates better software by
natural selection, but that means that there's probably a large
deal of bad code (that's not going to survive) going around at
every moment in time.

> 
> >You Windoze guys crack me up.  Not only do not get it, but you laugh
> 
> I don't touch Windows, me self.

I do. Should I feel insulted now?  <g>