
I don’t just refuse, I don’t tolerate a-holes fullstop - nullnullnull
http://www.codingninja.co.uk/i-dont-just-refuse-i-dont-tolerate-a-holes-fullstop/
======
jiggy2011
Problem is , how do you define an "asshole". I know a few people I consider
complete a-holes but they seem to be very popular with everyone else.

Likewise I know a few people who are disliked because they have a number of
weird personality traits but I don't take offense to them at all.

~~~
nullnullnull
I guess, it's subjective to a degree. There probably is a slight grey area.
But on the whole, I think its the "generally" recognised a-holes. i.e. some-
one most would describe as an a-hole.

------
factorial
This blog post is ludicrous. Seriously, how bloated does your head have to be
to insert your own quotes in your blog articles? Check this out:

"There is nothing, in software engineering that can’t be done by other “non-
genius” programmers. Further no one developer is greater than a community of
developers. - Coding Ninja"

Are you so sure about it? A million mediocre mathematicians couldn't have
achieved what Grigori Perelman did, and a million of mediocre developers
couldn't have produced the tools we use nowadays. There is absolutely no
evidence that a community of average guys could have come up with something
like LIPS or Smalltalk. If you claim otherwise, then please mention ONE
example. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants, and only a myopic
cretin would deny the staggering impact they have on all our lives and our
profession.

For further reading, dear OP, check out this post by Joel Spolsky:
<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html>

~~~
nullnullnull
The reason for the self quote, is because the block quote only has one style
on that theme. Thus in the past readers have been confused between external
quotes and internal quotes. That is the reason (as a means of reference).

Secondly, the example you gave is about mathematics. In that context I agree.
But in the context of software programming this is not the the same. The
statement stands.

~~~
factorial
Do you know who McCarthy and Alonzo Church were, what the lambda calculus is,
and in which way LISP relates to mathematics? If this is all Greek to you,
then please look it up. Next time, though, please do some research BEFORE you
write blog posts. It will save you from being ridiculed.

~~~
nullnullnull
Yes I'm aware, you still haven't backed your statement. The context is
"software engineering" not about creating the next LISP. So please answer that
before throwing ad-hominem's?

~~~
factorial
Who creates the tools that allow, in your world view, average programmers to
compete with "geniuses"?

Further, you are the one making bold claims, so the burden of proof lies on
you. There are more than enough examples of great software written by
"geniuses". But now please mention one great (groundbreaking) project that was
written by an army of mediocre programmers.

Let's just make it a little game. I'll go first:

Don Knuth: TeX

Now is your turn!

~~~
nullnullnull
No, you have completely miss-represented that article. No where did I say to
the effect that a group of non-genius can be the same as a genius. This is
something that you injected (incorrectly). Now you are asking me to defend
something that you incorrectly suggested and attributed to me!

The claim I made (if you actually read it carefully) is that in current field
of software engineering (99.99% of software, boring Line Of Business software,
OS, Kernels etc.) can and are done by average developers. And they do not
require "super developers" with inflated ego's aka the a-holes.

You however taken away that to some how mean "geniuses". That is an error on
your comprehension and interpretation.

So please do calm down your nerd rage :)

~~~
factorial
I'll quote you again:

"There is nothing, in software engineering that can’t be done by other “non-
genius” programmers. Further no one developer is greater than a community of
developers. - Coding Ninja"

If you think that kernel programming is easy and can be done by "average"
programmers then you are either so far ahead of the curve that you don't even
realize it, or you are a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I
strongly suspect that it's the latter.

The important stuff gets done by truly outstanding people. To deny this is
nothing but laughable.

~~~
nullnullnull
I didn't say anything about easy or hard (again you are injecting). Yes kernel
programming is hard. However it is not "impossible" :

case in point-> The Elements of Computing Systems: Building a Modern Computer
from First Principles (by Noam Nisan).

Your average CS student can do this (from nand to tetris). Kernel development
is hard (without a doubt), but not impossible.

"The important stuff gets done by truly outstanding people. To deny this is
nothing but laughable."

Once again, you are adding things that do not exist in the original article.

~~~
factorial
You must be joking! The book you are referring to accompanies a course called
"CS116". What about digging through some graduate school course catalogues
instead?

Of course Kernel development isn't impossible. Otherwise, there wouldn't be
any kernels in the first place. But of course it is the domain of a rather
small number of people.

~~~
nullnullnull
I'm well aware of the course, what exactly is your point? Your second part of
the sentence makes no sense either, what is your point?

I've demonstrated that kernel development, although "hard" is possible even by
students (hence the reference to the book and its related course).

You have offered nothing in response.

