This afternoon, may I invite you to make some coffee or tea or whatever and take a good read at @aparrish's "Programming is Forgetting: Toward a New Hacker Ethic" - http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/programming-forgetting-new-hacker-ethic/
Then, I partecipated in a clash on the #Guix mailing list
The clash was about language, but language always brings something political within; it involved gender and sexual orientation.
So someone, during the clash, mentioned A Hacker's Manifesto and referred to it as the sole valid cultural bench mark for themselves
They were contradicted by the mantainers, thank God
FAP, thank you so much for pointing me to this
Allison Parrish' s talk is more directly political and less "cultural"
In it, the concern for taking into account minorities in tech communities is more urgent
And this is something we faced directly in Guix.
Bu this Ruby talk you proposed is very ambitious. I loved it
There' s a joke I love
it goes like:
Smalltalk stands to C++ as Lisp stands to Haskell
There' s a point of view from which Smaltalk and C++ are both legitimately object oriented languages
And there' s another one from which Smalltalk and C++ couldn' t be more antitethical.
But I never could articulate why
Now this formalism nonformalism take seems to be a good contribution in that direction.
I've read way too much but feel that I don't have too much to show for.
One angle is that C++ (and Java) is said to promote a data-centric design while the Smalltalk ( and Ruby) community promote message- and reponsibility-centric designs.
(this email is hard to read because we wouldn't use these terms today to describe what he's trying to say)
The c2 page also talks about the parallels between OO and the actor model, which has led to claims that Erlang might be "The Most Object-Oriented Language" http://blog.noredink.com/post/142689001488/the-most-object-oriented-language
FAP, thank you for these links to Alan Kay s words and thoughts
Yes, they re not easy to read
I discovered Squeak in my 20ies and learned object orientation and Smalltalk through the Bank Account Tutorial.
There was this hierarchy of classes that were graphically represented in 2D and directly manipulable trhough "halos"
I was an autodidact, I home schooled myself, back then 😃
I was on the mailing list with Alan Kay s collegues and I didn t know who they were 🤣
It was a world of inspiration and beauty
Then I was hired in a Java shop. I was brought down to reality in a brutal and traumatic way.
I never wrote a line of code for more than 15 years out of trauma and I only reapproached the whole thing because of Clojure and now Guile scheme
To me the attention toward the learner is fundamental and something I am grateful for.
And my assumption is that the learner is interested in learning per se, because it s beautiful; not in the money coming from "getting things done"
I was flabbergasted in reading how to define common calculus functions in scheme (lambda calculus, that is) in the SICP
Many math students ignore that comletely.
I had math PhDs telling me "I am just a modest math student, I dont get these fancy cs things" referring to Clojure
I dont know Haskell but I have the hunch that there s the same culture underlying there.
The culture of "pragmatism" and "getting things done".
I like the idea of rambling at the REPL, not having clear thought a priori. For the sake of the experience of clearign them.
The idea that you have all figured out top to bottom and then having the compiler check for you is too similar to the Java/C++ miopy. Its burbakian.
@catonano @aparrish @federicomena There's certainly more going on than this but sometimes people just comes from completely different places and don't realize it. If I'm a web programmer in a startup and my requirements change by the week a dynamic language and in-formal design seems attractive. If I'm a systems engineer writing software for an airplane I certainly want to have all the formalism and proof I can get.