9 ms·
Closure, from why the lucky stiff (2013)
- maxfurman 3y agoI'll take this opportunity to link to Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby - https://poignant.guide https://poignant.guide - one of the most unique and inspiring programming language tutorials you'll ever read.
- ornornor 3y agoI never got it. Everyone says it’s fantastic, I feel like an idiot for absolutely not getting it at all when it came out and still not today.
- gosukiwi 3y agoYeah not my thing either, I'd rather see a cheatsheet and a few examples lol
- anyfoo 3y agoYou can't learn a programming language like that, unless it already has very similar paradigms to languages you already know. For example, try to learn APL[1] or Haskell like that (or just assembly if you haven't done any kind of assembly yet). [1] And that's not just because of the arcane symbols.
- marginalia_nu 3y agoI think assembly is probably the one language family you'd find most success learning from a reference sheet.
- anyfoo 3y agoOnce you've been told what a register, a stack, and an addressing mode is (among other details), sure. But then you do know the paradigms already. But of the languages I mentioned, assembly is certainly the one where the required concepts can be explained quickest, probably by far...
- Cerium 3y agoYeah, sure - as long as that reference sheet is the CPU reference manual.
- sillysaurusx 3y agoFor what it’s worth, I felt the same way, but never dared voice it. I think it’s worth appreciating as a thing of beauty. The raw talent required to make it is just incredible, and it probably takes a Rubyist to fully see the intricacies of what we’re meant to “get”. There’s a place for this kind of work, and it’s one of the delights of life that it exists at all.
- eddieroger 3y agoI did get it, and I would argue this book made me a better engineer. People learn different ways and retain knowledge differently. Some folks do really well with technical manuals and minimal but factual informational, and some folks respond better to more novel approaches. _why's guide was definitely the latter, and a vocal group of people seemed to agree. While _why's version was definitely on the far side of novel, the approach itself was used in a whole series[0] of books. It's all good that it wasn't your thing, and you're not an idiot, it just wasn't your style. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_First_(book_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_First_(book_series)
- esaym 3y agoSeriously, same here.
- throw_pm23 3y agoI loved it and found it super funny and inspiring. Never cared about Ruby though.
- thom 3y agoIt was very much of a time and place, and obviously people are welcome to take or leave it. I certainly cringe that every language now seems to need its own twee, jokey, book-long tutorial, like Learn You a Haskell for Great Good and Clojure for the Brave and True. But Why’s (Poignant) Guide captured the playfulness and nostalgia for lost time that the Ruby community evoked for a lot of people back then, especially those that had grown up with computers but drifted into enterprise software and watched the joy of technology slowly seep out of their lives. Whether it's a good way to learn Ruby the language, I don't really remember.
- mjw1007 3y agoI don't think the jokey book-long tutorial is a new phenomenon. I learned Fortran in the 80s from the Fortran Coloring Book.
- thom 3y agoI now also see Comic Pascal from 1984, fair enough.
- steveklabnik 3y agoComputer Lib / Dream Machines, 1974.
- kbutler 3y ago1981 Getting Started with TRS-80 Basic was also playful - https://archive.org/details/Getting_Started_with_TRS-80_Basic_1981_Tandy/page/n1/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/Getting_Started_with_TRS-80_Basi...
- dionidium 3y agoIn case it makes anybody feel better, I was "around" at the time and I never got it, either. Tried to read it many times and never could finish.
- preseinger 3y agoit characterizes programming in a way that is basically incoherent to most stereotypical programmers (i agree with you, for the record, it was gobbledegook to me too) the question is: does programming represent some kind of subjective expression, or some kind of objective precision? why's little zine says it's the former, but that's not how i see it at all programming is, for me, like working on math problems, or balancing equations, it's strict and pure and precise, and that's what i love about it, there's no connection to anything like art, or writing (in the novel sense), or other kinds of subjective expression but for some people, programming is like art, or writing a novel, or in any case a subjective expression of some abstract idea (or ideas) that they have at least this is what i see as the discrepancy
- rahoulb 3y agoI always said "Python is like writing maths, ruby is like writing english"
- preseinger 3y agoright! and, to build on that: people who see programming as maths understand it fundamentally differently than those who see it as prose, they approach every aspect of programming differently, evaluate "quality" on entirely different metrics, etc. in my experience, this is a major source of friction in programming teams, and deserves to be addressed more directly -- if i had it my way, i'd prefer that those who see programming as prose would be disabused of this incorrect notion, but i understand that this is my bias speaking, and not any objective truth :)
- tyg13 3y agoAs both a writer and someone who has a degree in math, I see the segregation of prose and mathematics into fundamentally different categories as arbitrary, perhaps even incorrect. I see an artistic element to mathematics, just as much as I see a mechanical element to prose. The mechanics of the thing tell us what we can do, the art of it tells us what we want to do. Perhaps even _why we do it.
- q845712 3y agoI said this elsewhere too -- while in general I like things _like_ the poignant guide, and appreciate its existence, I never actually finished reading it. To me it's an interesting touchstone work showing/reminding that the "invisibly neutral" tone we've collectively adopted is still an editorial choice and cultural moment. I'm sure writing and communication styles will drift back and forth over the next few decades. Sometime soon (if not already) another generation of younger developers will coalesce around some document that feels authentically counter-cultural, like their own late-night jokes and dreams have been given just enough coherence to hook them in, and then I probably still won't get it because I'll be out of touch.... :)
- JackFr 3y agoMostly the same, except I don’t feel like an idiot for not getting it. I thought it was self-indulgent and too clever by half. But I admit that’s just taste and not a measure of its objective worth. I have a theory about _why’s popularity though. I think a lot of it comes from the cohort of us who were strictly trained in a C/Fortran/Knuth Art of Computer Programming style old-school approach. When your first presented with the mind blowing ideas of what programming can be when you start to liberate yourself from the machine — if the source has a quirky voice, there always remains a soft spot in your heart for them, be it the Little Schemer, SICP or _why.
- partdavid 3y agoThat's okay. Another senior DBA lived on a boat, so I took my DBAs over to his boat and we spent the afternoon, then went for a walk in the tony seaside town at which his boat was moored. We went to an art gallery. One of the pieces was a semi-abstract gradient, but the colors could definitely remind one of the sky, and the steely gray of the ocean. I loved the way you looked at it and kind of got lost in the middle. It "felt" like the ocean more than "looking" like the ocean to me. Another DBA was standing there looking at it and said, "I don't get it." "I'm not sure there's something to 'get', exactly." "Is there a boat or a person hidden in it? I can't find it." For this person, looking at a picture had to have a point--a subject. It was, on some level, a "Where's Waldo?" exercise and since he didn't solve the problem of finding Waldo, he didn't get it. But not everything's like that. It's okay to not like something. It's okay to not get it. You can still be a DBA. You can still have a picnic on the boat.
- lquist 3y agoI would argue that it is the only programming tutorial that could be called literature.
- peter_retief 3y agoI really miss his energy, crazy kind soul of his.
- sillysaurusx 3y agoGitHub is one of the most frustrating platforms to try to read a pdf on. Would anyone mind posting a direct link? It’s basically impossible to get it to show on my iPad, and I forget the raw url syntax at the moment. Sorry for the unrelated comment, but maybe the direct pdf link will help others too.
- kryptiskt 3y agoWhen you open it, there is a download button on the top right of the frame around the PDF.
- zimpenfish 3y agohttps://raw.githubusercontent.com/steveklabnik/CLOSURE/master/CLOSURE.pdf https://raw.githubusercontent.com/steveklabnik/CLOSURE/maste... might work
- elSidCampeador 3y agothis worked! thanks
- sillysaurusx 3y agoPerfect, thank you. Somehow the download button didn’t lead here, or at least didn’t trigger this for me. It might be because I have the GitHub iOS app installed.
- forks 3y agoDoes this link from the repo's README help? https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0n2dljz8anih62/CLOSURE.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/c0n2dljz8anih62/CLOSURE.pdf?dl=0
- sillysaurusx 3y agoThank you for the attempt. On an iPad it’s only a small step up from GitHub. Dropbox’s renderer doesn’t load in all the pages, so most of it is blank. We live in interesting times. Everyone wants to invent their own pdf renderer instead of letting the host OS do it. :)
- masto 3y agoWould anyone be willing to explain this? Who is "us", what is a PCL, what is a spool, what are these random words? Is this supposed to be a puzzle?
- anyfoo 3y agoOthers already explained this, I just wanted to add that you make me feel old...
- masto 3y agoI'm 48. I don't think age has anything to do with knowing the context behind this. From the other explanations, you apparently had to follow a very specific subculture dedicated to a specific individual. I did not, rather the opposite. I tried to read his Ruby book when it came out and I simply couldn't. No offense to the vast army of folks who enjoyed it -- I think we're all allowed to like what we like. There's something wrong with the way my brain is wired. I am by accounts an intelligent, capable, successful person, but I am completely unable to "read" comic books. I might as well be staring at a foreign language. When I'm trying to learn a technical topic, I thrive on dry reference material. Put a cartoon in and it's like running into a brick wall. I don't know where I was going there except I feel like any time this comes up, I have to over-explain myself for not liking that book, because everybody loves that book and I will be burned at the stake for not regarding it as the greatest programming book ever written. It's just my personal experience, and I accept that I'm totally wrong about it, ok? Anyway, shorter version is that I had such a visceral reaction, any time I see "why_" mentioned, my reading comprehension reverts to that of a toddler. If that's all irrelevant and the point you were making was more like "kids today don't know what PCL is", I am very familiar with PCL and print spoolers, but detached from any context that would suggest printers, they failed to take on any semantic value.
- bagels 3y agoYou can be perfectly capable of reading a comic book and not really care to try to learn technical information by way of a comic book. I'd much rather learn from concise code examples, with short explanations for new concepts. It's a lot more efficient than wading through all the irrelevant prose and illustration.
- tboyd47 3y agoWorth reading through for a chuckle. Don't deprive yourself. Why_ had a type of character we can easily forget used to exist, in this modern world where everyone is either slammed through cookie-cutters to become over-socialized slimy corporate people or medicated into a zombie-like state of partial existence.
- Arubis 3y ago_why's work was much of what got me into Ruby in the first place. Not so much quirky as proudly both hyperliterate and unhinged, like the computing world's extension of depressed indie bands meeting David Foster Wallace in the early aughts. Most of us that would've been into _why's stuff now have more traditional-looking jobs and responsibilities. But I'm so grateful for what he showed us then, and miss the more genuinely human, broken and vulnerable community he represented.
- local_crmdgeon 3y agoI miss that in general. Everyone has become a Cool Internet Person who acts like a celebrity, or at least in a homogenized way. I miss the internet of weirdos, that felt separate from the real world. I worry a lot that I contributed to how this is now, too, in my professional life.
- agumonkey 3y agoSometimes I feel bad for having been a customer of digital devices and internet, and then going into computing studies. It's strange to observe a world I dislike even though I was part of the wave driving the change.
- rjbwork 3y agoHonestly, internet of weirdos that feels separate from the real world is on private discords now. I pluck people from various semi-public communities that seem cool and build cool private communities.
- runjake 3y ago(2013) dang
- dang 3y agoAdded. Thanks.
- akkartik 3y agoPage 17 mentions a link and then goes off on a poignant meditation about its likelihood of breaking: "It feels like I may have just gone ahead and ruined what I am by [dumping this link]. Has all of this writing lost its timelessness, to have this relic here? But maybe this link will never break, maybe it will stay there for all time. Maybe it's me. I'm a relic which is already out of his time in the present age." The link is now broken. You weren't the relic, _why.
- cobaltoxide 3y agoWhat is this?
- bloopernova 3y agoWhy the lucky stiff wrote a great, poignant guide to Ruby. A lot of people loved it and demanded more from Why. They decided they didn't want to be in the public eye even a little, and wrote a goodbye. I think CLOSURE is that goodbye?
- steveklabnik 3y agoThis is broadly correct, yes. _why decided to leave, and did so. Years later, his website reappeared, containing the information I've collected here. CLOSURE is the title I gave it, because that is what I think it represents.
- local_crmdgeon 3y agoHas he ever reached out to you? His identity isn't that hard to work out - though he's no longer an engineer. I think it's good to leave him alone, that's what wants.
- steveklabnik 3y agoWe have never spoken. He came to my hometown once, for an event, but I could not attend as I was out of town that weekend. Part of me would love to talk to him someday, and part of me would prefer that we don't. I am incredibly thankful that he braved the danger to give us this; in some ways I do feel like this was us talking. It's complicated.
- gsinclair 3y agoThank you for your sensitive curatorial work, Steve.
- bloopernova 3y ago
- steveklabnik 3y agoHey folks. Not sure why this is here today, but happy to answer questions. I've long held... complicated feelings about a lot of all of this. For an analysis I did of the work at the time, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaWHVceDbFo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaWHVceDbFo
- echelon 3y agoTime well spent. Thanks for the talk!
- joeatwork 3y ago_why offered a vision of computing, art and delight that we could maybe use more of nowadays. For more reference see “This Hack Was Not Properly Planned” here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080512050317/http:/hackety.org/2007/12/24/thisHackWasNotProperlyPlanned.html https://web.archive.org/web/20080512050317/http:/hackety.org...
- jes5199 3y agointeresting timing, I've been thinking about _why lately; Brett Victor's recent update https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36596095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36596095 gave me _why vibes. a thing I realized recently is that _why's disappearance ends up making his work more "Poignant" - the tech stuff washes away, but the story lives on. In that sense, it's a success. if you look at old technology, the descriptions and documentation tend to outlast the artifacts. I like to imagine us as stage performers - any given implementation of a Shakespeare play only lasts a couple hours, but the structure of it is timeless. Perhaps we should all be writing more, implementing less. also, it's always good to consider what fame is, and what it does to people. In an attention economy, we imagine that fame is wealth - but it's clearly not so straightforward
- steveklabnik 3y agoPermanence is a major theme of _why's work. Some of his final tweets were about comparing computer programs to works of literature, specifically Kafka. A longer meditation on this appears in this work. Kafka asked his friend Max to burn all of his works and not have them published, but he was betrayed, and so we have Kafka's books. _why burned his own works, but thanks to git, we were able to posthumously un-burn them. And then this work was temporary, and what I did was make it permanent. Again. Most of _why's projects don't really work on modern hardware, or with up to date compilers, or up to date versions of Ruby. Yet we can still read this book today.
- th0ma5 3y agoMy complicated feelings is that producing it and consuming it was all very unhealthy. There is nothing mystical about a machine and it isn't curious or interested that you can make a universal machine do the logic of any conceivable machine. I feel these works did a lot to hobble people in their growth by putting too much emphasis on fantasy and not enough of actual understanding. I blame our mess of a JavaScript ecosystem on this idea that if you can dream it you can do it, and should do it, and that's wrong. It is like the old toddler wielding a knife thing, just because you found it doesn't mean you know what you have.
- rescripting 3y agoThis take reads like you've never created anything for the intrinsic joy of creation. Not everything must be utilitarian. Art is still art even if its clumsily made or seen only by the artist. Most of us do this to feed and clothe ourselves and our families. Its easy to lose sight of the fact that we're often engaged in creative, artistic pursuits. If you were lucky enough to become enchanted by computers before you had to keep a roof over your head you likely stayed up late writing code, tweaking parameters and watching the pixels or the numbers fall out the other end. Late nights driven only by your own curiosity and the joy you felt while doing it. No feature requests, design documents, or stakeholders except yourself. Of course there is also the code that keeps the planes in the sky and the electricity in the wires, necessary and beautiful in its own right, but that isn't what this is about.
- th0ma5 3y agoThere are many replies to this story about how it got people into the field of programming? Art is one thing, and I'm sure it was a great feeling to create leftpad but these writings sell a mystique that doesn't exist. It has always been people and relationships. I guess I don't know how to explain how it appeared to experienced professional working developers. It was like, here have a ticket for the burnout ride.
- otikik 3y agoChunky Bacon forever!
- boolueah 3y agoHe and I went to high school together, and he was really funny then too. In our seminary class, I would always ask him to play the Peanuts theme song on piano. I loved how he didn’t care what anybody thought and he just did his own thing. I lost track of him after we graduated.