TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

'My team will be able to program circles around everyone else' (2002)

64 点作者 zeveb超过 4 年前

28 条评论

jerf超过 4 年前
Be sure to view this through the lens of 2002, where Python is still a niche language and Perl is only used by certain UNIX crazies, at least in the eyes of most of the business competition of the time. Most statically-typed languages are fairly awful at this point and you could get big wins by switching to something else. A language I consider fatally flawed in 2020 could be a huge differential advantage in 2002, because the competition is that much worse.<p>In 2020, I think we have many more viable languages that have squeezed out the sort of general crappiness we had in 2002 in programming languages, and the ability of a startup to choose $LANGUAGE and attain a systematic multiplicative advantage over incumbents is small. You have a modest opportunity to win over incumbents by choosing better operational mechanisms (I call it &quot;marginal&quot; because the incumbents are switching to k8s or whatever at a decent speed too), but mostly your big technical advantage is the ability to greenfield something, even as it is also a nearly-crippling disadvantage in some ways too.
评论 #24828300 未加载
评论 #24833459 未加载
评论 #24828915 未加载
hinkley超过 4 年前
To my chagrin, or even dismay, I&#x27;ve discovered that most of the time people who &#x27;code circles around someone&#x27; have found a way to handicap everyone else.<p>When you construct code to exactly fit your own mental model of the universe, you filter out a lot of other potential collaborators. You create a system where you <i>have</i> to do certain work because nobody else can. It&#x27;s easy to interpret this as being about your qualities instead of your failings.<p>And eventually this bites everybody on the ass. These people will often become a bottleneck, because while it may look like they won&#x27;t delegate to others, the truth is that they cannot. They don&#x27;t know how, and they&#x27;re standing at the bottom of a hole before it becomes apparent.
评论 #24828857 未加载
评论 #24828902 未加载
评论 #24828715 未加载
评论 #24830567 未加载
phtrivier超过 4 年前
Obvious flamebait is obvious, but still:<p>&quot;I will be able to point to various examples where Lisp programmers have written not only 3-5 times faster, but they wrote things other programmers thought were impossible&quot; -&gt; in all fairness, and sincere curiosity, &quot;citation needed ™&quot; (though it&#x27;s hard to point to any <i>successful software</i>, as pretty much all of it is crap, whatever I wrote included)<p>&quot;Strong typing is for weak minds&quot; -&gt; hey, here is a function that takes an argument called &quot;participants&quot;. Quick, what are the functions that you can call on it ? Assuming it&#x27;s a collection, what kind ? What are the elements made of ? Is it heterogenous ? Is the field &quot;name&quot; specified for each of them ? Is it always there ? Are there cases where it&#x27;s a string and others where it&#x27;s a tuple ? Does it depends on user input ? Has it been sanitized ? Has it been produced by code you have not written ? Or by code you wrote a year ago ?<p>What do you mean, &quot;you don&#x27;t know ?&quot; Oh, you must be one of those &quot;weak minds&quot; MIT guys like to make fun, of. Welcome to the club ! No big deal, we&#x27;re still nice. We sometimes get things done, and we get to repeat the same weak&#x2F;strong arguments every so often whitout anyone ever saying anything that might change each other minds. Kinda like social science and militant politics, but with waaaaay higher pay.<p>Cheers !
buescher超过 4 年前
Given Richard Gabriel is the author of the long essay &quot;Worse is Better&quot; and the wonderful book Patterns of Software (which you should all read), and given it&#x27;s out of context, I have to read this as both tongue-in-cheek and heartfelt.<p>Play &quot;Jeopardy&quot; - what is the question he&#x27;s answering, and why is he answering it that way?
评论 #24829722 未加载
TigeriusKirk超过 4 年前
The context here seems to a Yahoo Group dedicated to rethinking computing from the ground up, called The Feyerabend Project <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dreamsongs.com&#x2F;Feyerabend&#x2F;Feyerabend.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dreamsongs.com&#x2F;Feyerabend&#x2F;Feyerabend.html</a><p>Given the intentionally radical thought experiment nature of the group, the hyperbolic language takes on a somewhat different flavor.
jcheng超过 4 年前
For some historical context, the late 90&#x27;s&#x2F;early 2000&#x27;s was a time when Java&#x2F;J2EE and the n-tier architecture were absolutely dominant in the startup world, and the ideas of functional programming were considered academic or outdated. Saying the word &quot;closure&quot; to most programmers back then would give you the same suspicious look you&#x27;d get for saying &quot;monad&quot; today. At least that was my experience as a junior programmer bouncing between web startups in those days.<p>In retrospect, the J2EE hype was wildly overblown, optimized for problems nobody needed solving, and introduced unnecessary complexity and boilerplate at every level of the stack. I can only imagine how frustrating it was to have a full understanding of how bad the status quo was, yet have your alternatives dismissed out of hand because &quot;not Java&quot;.<p>I remember thinking people like Paul Graham[0] and Phil Greenspun[1] were pretty brave for going against the J2EE dogma--to suggest that these &quot;little languages&quot; not only had interesting properties, but should actually be used in production. I found their arguments convincing, but didn&#x27;t have the guts to push for them at work.<p>[0]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;avg.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;avg.html</a> [1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Philip-Alexs-Guide-Web-Publishing&#x2F;dp&#x2F;1558605347" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Philip-Alexs-Guide-Web-Publishing&#x2F;dp&#x2F;...</a>
评论 #24831110 未加载
chubot超过 4 年前
This was obviously written in a purposely inflammatory style. I&#x27;d like to see the context, which is unfortunately missing here, and on the blog.<p>For those unfamiliar with him, I suggest reading some of Richard Gabriel&#x27;s other writing. He is known for &quot;Worse is better&quot; but that&#x27;s the tip of the iceberg.<p>This isn&#x27;t the piece of writing you should take away from him, especially out of context. You can probably find a lot of silly things other people have written on Usenet 20+ years ago.
jnwatson超过 4 年前
I have one experience with Lisp, an undergraduate AI class in the late 90&#x27;s.<p>It was an interesting experience, since I didn&#x27;t actually have convenient access to a Lisp runtime. I would write my Lisp assignments with pencil and paper, and (procrastinating) a few hours before the assignment was due make it to the computer lab and enter my program, just as I imagined my predecessors worked in the 60s and 70s.<p>The odd thing about Lisp was that my programs almost invariably worked (modulo a mismatched paren) the first time. I&#x27;ve rarely had that happen in other environments.<p>There was the one time where the set of library functions I thought were present weren&#x27;t available in the Lisp variant available. I simply implemented the functions I needed in a few minutes.<p>I only wish I&#x27;d have had an opportunity to explore the Lisp world more. It seemed like it was from the past and the future at the same time.
评论 #24828613 未加载
评论 #24834403 未加载
umvi超过 4 年前
&gt; Strong typing is for weak minds<p>Preach brother. Safety rails on mountain roads are for weak drivers. My team could drive down a mountain pass in a semi truck drifting around corners such that the trailer hangs out over the edge of the cliff during the drift and never lose a single dollar of inventory.
评论 #24830796 未加载
AnimalMuppet超过 4 年前
Thus speaks someone who doesn&#x27;t know anything about the difference between computer programming and software engineering. They may be able to program circles around everyone else, but they can&#x27;t software engineer their way out of a wet paper bag, and they&#x27;re going to produce a disaster. But they&#x27;ll be on their way to the next place before it becomes clear how much of a disaster they created at this place, so they&#x27;ll go cheerfully on their way, basking in their own smartness as they create destruction.
评论 #24828462 未加载
评论 #24828647 未加载
sciurus超过 4 年前
Here&#x27;s the wikipedia entry for the author of the quoted text: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Richard_P._Gabriel" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Richard_P._Gabriel</a>
MR4D超过 4 年前
A &quot;(2002)&quot; should be added to this.
codethief超过 4 年前
Seems to be offline. Here&#x27;s the archived version:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20101217145038&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lemonodor.com&#x2F;archives&#x2F;000246.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;web.archive.org&#x2F;web&#x2F;20101217145038&#x2F;https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lemonodor...</a>
scotty79超过 4 年前
So, how did it go for the last 18 years for this guy? Or was it just a satire?
评论 #24828253 未加载
paulsutter超过 4 年前
Oh really, what was it that he was building in 2002, and how did that work out?
评论 #24828855 未加载
评论 #24828678 未加载
sxp超过 4 年前
I prefer Stephenson&#x27;s description of the team in Cryptonomicon:<p>Epiphyte Corp.’s business plan is about an inch thick, neither fat nor skinny as these things go. The interior pages are slickly and groovily desktop-published out of Avi’s laptop. The covers are rugged hand-laid paper of rice chaff, bamboo tailings, free-range hemp, and crystalline glacial meltwater made by wizened artisans operating out of a mist-shrouded temple hewn from living volcanic rock on some island known only to aerobically gifted, Spandex-sheathed Left Coast travel bores. An impressionistic map of the South China Sea has been dashed across these covers by molecularly reconstructed Ming Dynasty calligraphers using brushes of combed unicorn mane dipped into ink made of grinding down charcoal slabs fashioned by blind stylite monks from hand-charred fragments of the True Cross.<p>The actual content of the business plan hews to a logical structure straight out of the Principia Mathematica. Lesser entrepreneurs purchase business-plan-writing software: packages of boilerplate text and spread sheets, craftily linked together so that you need only go through and fill in a few blanks. Avi and Beryl have written enough business plans between the two of them that they can smash them out from brute memory. Avi’s business plans tend to go something like this:<p>MISSION: At [name of company] it is our conviction that [to do the stuff we want to do] and to increase shareholder value are not merely complementary activities—they are inextricably linked.<p>PURPOSE: To increase shareholder value by [doing stuff]<p>EXTREMELY SERIOUS WARNING (printed on a separate page, in red letters on a yellow background): Unless you are as smart as Johann Karl Friedrich Gauss, savvy as a half-blind Calcutta bootblack, tough as General William Tecumseh Sherman, rich as the Queen of England, emotionally resilient as a Red Sox fan, and as generally able to take care of yourself as the average nuclear missile submarine commander, you should never have been allowed near this document. Please dispose of it as you would any piece of high-level radioactive waste and then arrange with a qualified surgeon to amputate your arms at the elbows and gouge your eyes from their sockets. This warning is necessary because once, a hundred years ago, a little old lady in Kentucky put a hundred dollars into a dry goods company which went belly-up and only returned her ninety-nine dollars. Ever since then the government has been on our asses. If you ignore this warning, read on at your peril—you are dead certain to lose everything you’ve got and live out your final decades beating back waves of termites in a Mississippi Delta leper colony.<p>Still reading? Great. Now that we’ve scared off the lightweights, let’s get down to business.<p>EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: We will raise [some money], then [do some stuff] and increase shareholder value. Want details? Read on.<p>INTRODUCTION: [This trend], which everyone knows about, and [that trend], which is so incredibly arcane that you probably didn’t know about it until just now, and [this other trend over here] which might seem, at first blush, to be completely unrelated, when all taken together, lead us to the (proprietary, secret, heavily patented, trademarked, and NDAed) insight that we could increase shareholder value by [doing stuff]. We will need $ [a large number] and after [not too long] we will be able to realize an increase in value to $ [an even larger number], unless [hell freezes over in midsummer].<p>DETAILS:<p>Phase 1: After taking vows of celibacy and abstinence and forgoing all of our material possessions for homespun robes, we (viz, appended resumes) will move into a modest complex of scavenged refrigerator boxes in the central Gobi Desert, where real estate is so cheap that we are actually being paid to occupy it, thereby enhancing shareholder value even before we have actually done anything. On a daily ration consisting of a handful of uncooked rice and a ladleful of water, we will [begin to do stuff].<p>Phase 2, 3, 4, . . . , n-1: We will [do more stuff, steadily enhancing shareholder value in the process] unless [the earth is struck by an asteroid a thousand miles in diameter, in which case certain assumptions will have to be readjusted; refer to Spreadsheets 397-413].<p>Phase n: before the ink on our Nobel Prize certificates is dry, we will confiscate the property of our competitors, including anyone foolish enough to have invested in their pathetic companies. We will sell all of these people into slavery. All proceeds will be redistributed among our shareholders, who will hardly notice, since Spreadsheet 265 demonstrates that, by this time, the company will be larger than the British Empire at its zenith.<p>SPREADSHEETS: [Pages and pages of numbers in tiny print, conveniently summarized by graphs that all seem to be exponential curves screaming heavenward, albeit with enough pseudo-random noise in them to lend plausibility].<p>RESUMES: Just recall the opening reel of The Magnificent Seven and you won’t have to bother with this part; you should crawl to us on hands and knees and beg us for the privilege of paying our salaries.
rusk超过 4 年前
Your team will be a compliance nightmare<p>EDIT they will also burn out and leave once real operational issues drive through fixes that break your well thought out abstractions and you don’t have the safety net of a type system to catch you and progress grindS to a halt as technical debt mounts and we just want you to fix the damn bug not hear about your artists journey!
ivraatiems超过 4 年前
So if I understand this right, you (the author) are the only one who knows whether anything is good, your people are the only ones who can fix anything, and anyone who doesn&#x27;t believe you is an idiot?<p>Please explain to me how this mode of thinking is distinguishable from being in a cult.<p>I would not work with this man. Anyone who cares enough about how &quot;smart&quot; they are by some arbitrary metric to write screeds about it would be intolerable to work with. Imagine what happens when they are, at long last, wrong about anything.<p>If this guy represents self-professed &quot;winners&quot;, I&#x27;ll take the losers any day.
评论 #24828688 未加载
advisedwang超过 4 年前
This is parody, right?
评论 #24828614 未加载
评论 #24830617 未加载
jayd16超过 4 年前
This post is a nightmare but lets examine it anyway.<p>How realistic is the idea that there are talented people trapped in some obscure language that could be underpaid? Unless you&#x27;re looking for passionate zealots I can&#x27;t help but think talented engineers could easily change languages if they so chose.
评论 #24831710 未加载
评论 #24831302 未加载
praptak超过 4 年前
I would not like to work with a 10x coders team unless they are also 10x maintainers and 10x troubleshooters.
评论 #24829036 未加载
microtherion超过 4 年前
As a rule of thumb, if a technology truly conveyed a massive productivity advantage, one would expect its proponents to keep this a closely guarded secret (while reaping vast riches) and let the competition figure it out in good time, rather than shout it from the rooftops.
sumtechguy超过 4 年前
every step of the way my brain is going &#x27;oh no no no oh geeze no&#x27;... The only thing they sort of got right was experience does mater, then messes it up but they want to pay peanuts for them.
jrm4超过 4 年前
While I <i>can&#x27;t</i> disagree that this is quite flamebaity, I think it&#x27;s worth considering why this still resonates strongly among significant number of people (myself included) And i&#x27;d go with something along the lines of &quot;A lot of publicly used software is crap, and getting software out there by people who work this way would probably give us better software.&quot;<p>I know, I know, usability and design and modern capitalism etc. etc. But a guy who uses e.g. Linux and the command-line extensively and yet doesn&#x27;t program for a living can dream...
swatson741超过 4 年前
This is the programming language equivalent of saying &quot;My dad could beat up your dad.&quot;
bryanrasmussen超过 4 年前
was that belive at the end intentional?
d3ntb3ev1l超过 4 年前
Humor for the strongly typed
tmpz22超过 4 年前
I didn&#x27;t know it was possible but &#x2F;r&#x2F;iamverysmart has a winner.<p>---<p>Though it&#x27;s not relevant, I would argue like this:<p>My team will be able to program circles around everyone else. They will be able to construct rapidly a language specific to the problem we are solving rather than using a language designed by computer scientists worrying about their place in history and a herd of library writers working in cubicles a thousand miles from our business. My team will be able to use a language without training wheels. Strong typing is for weak minds, and it&#x27;s exactly like they say at MIT: Our current popular languages are designed to help losers lose less.<p>I will be able to point to various examples where Lisp programmers have written not only 3-5 times faster, but they wrote things other programmers thought were impossible. In this regard, I&#x27;d tell the CEO, our competitors will be spending all their time trying to figure out that it&#x27;s really possible we&#x27;re doing what we&#x27;re doing, because they will be thinking in terms of customization at compile time or link time, not at runtime.<p>Moreover, we will be operating where the CEO is focusing on his or her specialty and not imposing his or her knuckleheaded view on technology.<p>Because Lisp is dead, I&#x27;ll get better programmers for less money. I&#x27;ll be able to guarantee 50 more IQ points for the same pay. And my guys will be able to spend their time typing in value not book keeping overhead and typing in type descriptions because their guys are too stupid to know when they type + numbers are involved.<p>Because no one uses Lisp, I&#x27;ll have my pick of thousands of great, experienced programmers looking to work for someone with a non-zero IQ, not the ones fresh out of college with 10 programs under their belts.<p>I&#x27;ll be compatible with everything because it is right now. And if someone throws me a bug, I can code around it in a few minutes. Being a niche market means we&#x27;re more proprietary. People will not use Lisp to compete with us because they are lamebrains listening to the latest fashion statement from Sun or Microsoft.The open source crowd isn&#x27;t even smart enough to notice C++, so they are especially nowhere in the picture.<p>Of course, no CEO will belive this because every one of them is stupid.<p>- Posted October 2002
评论 #24828020 未加载