

A Non-Programmer’s Apology - araneae
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/nonapology

======
neilk
This is from 2006, five years ago. Aaron Swartz's latest posts have been about
decentralizing DNS, and his Twitter viewer.

I'm going to guess that political writing hasn't totally worked out either. I
think it was plain from this piece that he thought writing was important, but
it wasn't something that he was passionate about. If you're going to make a
career of writing, you have to be unable to NOT write.

Anyway, when Aaron wrote that, he was 20, and now he's 25. At this point in
his life he should be allowed to try and abandon different philosophies
without censure. Actually, maybe we all should be. ;)

On the overall point, I think picking what you do based on "importance" is a
fallacy. We don't often see it in comp-sci, but this happens all the time to
graduates of law school or med school who have tremendous discipline but
little self-knowledge. Almost a decade later they find they hate practicing
law or that sick people just make them depressed.

Importance is good. But you also have to pick the thing you're suited for and
that gives you some pleasure. Otherwise you will get burned out. I can't help
feeling that this also had something to do with Aaron burning out on
programming; instead of seeking things that he just likes, he's been drawn
into doing "important" things, and judging his own work that way. I wonder if,
given his history, it is hard to escape the feeling that he has to work at
some world-class scale or do mega-important things. It must be hard to just
try something with beginner's mind again.

~~~
robg
I've been developing a theory for my life called "Decades". Do something for
ten years then move on by turning the last decade into a hobby and the new one
into a profession. It helps to realize that 5-10 years is the right amount of
time for the vaunted 10 to 20,000 hours (50 weeks x 20-40 hours/week x 5-10
years). It helps me set expectations too when deciding what to work on: Is
this something I would give five years of my life towards? If I enjoyed it
enough would I give ten years or more?

That was the best outcome of graduate school for me. I worked for four years
to get in and another four years to complete the degree. By the end of my
post-doc (another two years) I had an appreciation of difficult problems with
unknown boundaries. I also had an understanding of how my life would turn out
if I exclusively followed that path.

I worry today that the focus on rapid iteration leaves aside the challenge of
selecting important problems that can truly sustain us long-term. Projects are
hard. Sticking with projects is even harder. For me, that has been a whole new
lesson in my thirties as I try to develop technologies even as I learned that
lesson during my twenties. I hope my forties can start out to be just as
confusing as I slowly get a sense of the challenges around me. If not, I'm
afraid I'll stagnate and die from the inside out.

~~~
salemh
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuation> Jungian theory of personality,
career, social divergences at ~10 year marks, "mid-life" crisis'.

------
tptacek
Aaron. I promise, it is all love with me and this comment. But, get over
yourself. You are the 100 zillionth programmer to discover they are sick of
programming and of the programming "scene". One programmer I knew became a
roofer. Another became a trader. I know programmers who became doctors and
lawyers. I haven't read Hardy, but you make him sound like a jerk.

~~~
impendia
"I haven't read Hardy, but you make him sound like a jerk."

Hardy wrote of Srinivasa Ramanujan's untimely death that it was "not a great
tragedy" that he died at the age of thirty-two, as he was already too old to
do serious mathematics.

"A Mathematician's Apology" is the bitter rant of a man who only valued one
thing in his life and had largely lost the ability to do it in his old age. If
I had read it and believed it ten years ago, I never would have gone for my
Ph.D. in mathematics.

~~~
Alex3917
>"A Mathematician's Apology" is the bitter rant of a man who only valued one
thing in his life and had largely lost the ability to do it in his old age.

It's been a while since I've read it, but isn't it mostly a theory on what
makes something beautiful and worth doing? It's always struck me as being
probably one of the most important essays of all time.

I find it interesting that what Aaron and you took from the essay has
essentially zero overlap with my take.

~~~
robg
I thought AMA was incredibly sad. Both for what he thought was important, what
he didn't, and how that changed. As a huge baseball fan, I also loved that the
one constant were the daily scores.

------
btipling
> "I fear, this decision deprives society of one great programmer in favor of
> one mediocre writer...And for that, I apologize."

Please, the world will not tumble, it wont even remember you (except those of
us that loved using web.py :P). There are many others just like you, please
get over yourself. This post was hard to read without context. It must have
been intended for someone specifically who depended on him because if he is
really talking to the world and apologizing to the world, man is that an ego.
Narcissism much?

~~~
jessedhillon
It's meant to be in the style of _A Mathematician's Apology_ , which is an
essay that explains the motivations of a mathematician.

> Narcissism much?

It's not narcissism at all. It's a frank look at a programmer struggling with
his own understanding of his craft. Narcissism is something that is self-
centered and smug -- this is none of those, and it's a frank look at his
failings _and_ his greatness.

> There are many others just like you, please get over yourself.

Of course there are! That's who he's writing it for, and there are many, many
more who aren't like him and that's also who he's writing it for.

> This post was hard to read without context.

The context for this post is: _The writer is a (great?) programmer and the
reader possesses, or wants to possess, some understanding of human beings that
is not derived from TV and comic books._

------
6ren
As for responsibility, Ricardo's comparative advantage says you should do what
you are best at (even if it's crappy compared to everyone else):

 _England may be so circumstanced, that to produce the cloth may require the
labour of 100 men for one year; and if she attempted to make the wine, it
might require the labour of 120 men for the same time. England would therefore
find it her interest to import wine, and to purchase it by the exportation of
cloth._

 _To produce the wine in Portugal, might require only the labour of 80 men for
one year, and to produce the cloth in the same country, might require the
labour of 90 men for the same time. It would therefore be advantageous for her
to export wine in exchange for cloth. This exchange might even take place,
notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be produced
there with less labour than in England._
<http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/readings/ricardo7.html> [I know this
from _The Rational Optimist_ ]

And, as Aaron concludes, you get better at whatever you do. So you might as
well do what you love. Most of success is staying the distance - which is
easier if you love it. The thing is, most people happen to "love" what they do
well at; which I suspect means that it's not intrinsic love, but it makes us
feel good about ourselves (a sense of mastery, objectively confirmed by
others).

You can turn this around by lowering your standards, so that you feel good
about any level of success - the smallest possible measurable improvement.
This happens automatically in school - you're only competing with your peers,
who (let's face it) are pretty crappy compared with ordinary adults. Yet you
feel good if you do well compared with them. See also the time of year of
birth, of hockey players:
[http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/08120...](http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/081208)

------
jashkenas
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a
wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization
is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

------
dsifry
Just do what you love. Period. I've had times in my life when that was
programming - and it got me a long way, and I loved doing it while I did it.
Then I felt the challenge of learning how to build a business. So I made a
choice, and stepped away from coding, and started pursuing my passion of
building businesses. There's nothing wrong with your passions changing - think
of it as opportunities to learn new skills.

One of the funny (paradoxical?) results of this is that I've had my eyes
opened on things that I'd love to code. So, I've gotten passionate about
programming again. Ain't life funny?

You don't need to apologize for being honest and self-examining - you only
need to apologize if you aren't following your love and passion.

~~~
jimbokun
"you only need to apologize if you aren't following your love and passion."

Or maybe you are trying to stay alive in a war torn country, or figure out how
to keep your family from starving.

Let's all keep in mind that the possibility of "following your love and
passion" is only available to a privileged minority of human beings on this
planet.

(Not directed specifically at you, but to point out an unstated premise behind
the article and many of the comments here.)

~~~
dsifry
Of course, that's completely true - and all the more reason to follow your
love and passion if you happen to be privileged by luck of birth, family, and
genetics. I think that this is true of many HN readers and certainly describes
me. I'm incredibly grateful for being born into that lucky circumstance.

And I don't mean to put down people who can't do that because they have to
figure out how to stay alive in a war torn country, or figure out how to keep
your family from starving.

Thanks for your excellent point.

------
robg
A Mathematician's Apology is a must read as a great insight into opportunity
costs and life choices. I found it by accident but it left a deep groove in my
psyche.

[http://web.njit.edu/~akansu/PAPERS/GHHardy-
AMathematiciansAp...](http://web.njit.edu/~akansu/PAPERS/GHHardy-
AMathematiciansApology.pdf)

------
jordanb
I find Aaron's essays pretty difficult to read because they tend to come
straight from the navel.

On the other hand, he's a young guy. When I look at stuff I wrote when I was
in my early twenties, I was pretty far up my own asshole too. Now that I'm in
my late twenties, of course, I'm a worldly old sage who has a keen sense of
perspective on the world and my place in it. :P

I'm interested to see if Aaron gets some perspective too, or if perhaps his
very young success will have permanently warped his worldview.

~~~
aaronsw
In my defense, it was written 5 years ago, when I was an even younger guy.
Technically, I think I was still a teenager.

------
edw519
_At first it was small steps — discussing programming instead of doing it,
then discussing things for programmers, and then discussing other topics
altogether._

This is the trap of "programmers' communities", including HN. For many years,
I was a programmer by day and a civilian by night. There really wasn't much
social life for programmers together. Then when I starting socializing with
other programmers over beer, coffee, or on-line, my first thought was,
"Finally! A group I belong in." My second thought was, "Be careful. Talking
about work is not work. Have fun, but get back to work!"

 _...the only responsible way to live my life would be to do something that
would only be done by someone who knew this thing..._

That's the main reason I'm a programmer: What I write is needed and doesn't
already exist. If it did, I'd probably be doing something else.

 _...it went amazingly well and I have since become convinced that I’m a
pretty good programmer_

Here's a dirty little elusive secret: It doesn't matter how good a programmer
you are. All that really matters is whether or not what you build is _good
enough_.

 _I don’t want to be a programmer. When I look at programming books, I am more
tempted to mock them than to read them. When I go to programmer conferences,
I’d rather skip out and talk politics than programming. And writing code,
although it can be enjoyable, is hardly something I want to spend my life
doing._

LookingAtProgrammingBooks != Programming

GoingToProgrammingConferences != Programming

WritingCode != Programming (well maybe a little)

My definition of Programming: "rejoicing in someone else's delivery of value
with something I built for them". With a definition like that, I can't imagine
doing anything else. I bet if we all focused on that, those many speed bumps
wouldn't seem so high.

 _The writing is too important, the programming too unenjoyable._

You found your voice in prose, not syntax. Many spend their entire lives
searching for their voice without ever finding it. Good for you.

~~~
spacemanaki
"rejoicing in someone else's delivery of value with something I built for
them"

I think that's kind of a weird definition of programming. I don't know why it
rubs me the wrong way. I find tremendous joy in writing and reading code which
does something cool, even if those somethings don't provide value to the
outside world.

Of course, programming means different things for different people, and
there's nothing inherently wrong with your definition. I just think it's a bit
broad and maybe misses the mark for a lot of people who really enjoy
programming itself, rather than as a means to some end.

~~~
jerf
"I think that's kind of a weird definition of programming. I don't know why it
rubs me the wrong way."

Because a marketer can use it with a straight face to say that when they
created a successful marketing campaign they have "programmed". I think you
still need some concept of coding in there, even though I would also agree
some idea of value delivered to somebody is also important.

~~~
spacemanaki
I also definitely think delivering value is important! But wrapping that up in
definition of programming itself is mixing things up. I think it makes more
sense to include delivering value as part of the bigger context of programming
as a career and a job.

~~~
ollysb
For me at least "programming" refers to coding whilst "development" refers to
the process of adding value _using_ "programming".

------
jimbokun
"A man who is always asking ‘Is what I do worthwhile?’ and ‘Am I the right
person to do it?’ will always be ineffective himself and a discouragement to
others."

I disagree.

Such a person might have the makings of an outstanding leader. For example,
the company founder who understands her weaknesses and recruits outstanding
people to do those things for her company probably has a better chance of
success. If she can also frequently ask "is what we are doing worthwhile?" the
company can quickly adapt to the market and other changing circumstances.

------
jdp23
Totally relate. What I've always loved about programming was the satisfaction
of creating something that people like and find useful, the craft of great
design and implementation, and the time I spent in flow. After lot of learning
and practice, I've gotten my writing skills to that point as well -- which
means a lot less time trying to understand obscure error messages, fighting
tools, working around bugs.

So I still enjoy programming when I do it, but spend much much more time
writing these days. And I'm a lot happier, too!

------
sskates
My understanding is that there is no innate talent for programming, math, art,
or anything else. It's just a question of how hard you're willing to work at
learning how to become the best. (This is the thesis of Talent is Overrated,
which I highly recommend. Alternatively you can Google "deliberate practice".)

The kicker is that even if this isn't true, people who live their life as if
it is will be better off.

~~~
xiaoma
>My understanding is that there is no innate talent for programming, math,
art, or anything else.

Your understanding is completely wrong. Many, many genes have been linked with
specific talents.

Music: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm>

Athletics: <https://www.23andme.com/health/Muscle-Performance/>

Art:
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article880132.ec...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article880132.ece)

Also this from a geneticist: <http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=91>

I realize claims that there is no such thing as talent are very popular and
will sell a lot of books. That doesn't make them true. I'm afraid the way
things are and the way people wish they were are not the same.

~~~
sskates
Let's take this point by point.

Athletics: There are genetic components for physical abilities, this is well
established in the literature.

Art: Of course our cognitive abilities that set us apart from other species is
genetic. The article you link to makes no claim as to whether the best artists
are better than the rest of us because of their genes.

Music: There's a gene which makes 1 in 20 tone deaf and it looks like perfect
pitch has a basis in genetics (either way, it's something you can't train).
Far, far more important to being a successful musician are three components
(which the article cites): support from parents and mentors, instruction by
experts, and dedicated practice. Variation between ability in people comes
overwhelmingly from those three things and genetics plays a tiny role, if any
at all.

I think the overarching point is that if the OP prefers politics to
programming, then he shouldn't feel sorry for wasting his programming
"talent", as there's no such thing. He can be just as good at politics if he's
willing to put in the time to learn.

~~~
hackinthebochs
Just to take the musician example:

>far more important to being a successful musician are three components

I agree that these are necessary traits to be a successful musician, but they
are not sufficient. There are (apparently) many "tiger moms" out there pushing
their children with the same amount of relentlessness to excel with a musical
instrument. Yet only a handful of them play at Carnagie Hall at 10. I find it
hard to believe that those that achieve that level of proficiency were simply
"pushed harder" by their parents. This is a poor explanation for the outcome.
A better explanation is that the intersection of tiger mom's and genetic
aptitude for music is extremely rare.

>then he shouldn't feel sorry for wasting his programming "talent", as there's
no such thing

Again, I don't think the evidence bares this out. Taking myself as an example:
I've always taken to math extremely easily. I always "got" it with little
effort. This even through periods where I cared none about schoolwork and thus
didn't do any of it (my report cards reflected this). It was the same with
programming. I took my first class in high school and it came extremely easy
to me and I've excelled at it ever since. I find it _very_ hard to believe
that talent isn't a huge factor in these things.

------
andjones
_"deprives society of one great programmer in favor of one mediocre writer"_

I'd say since you care about writing you will eventually excel at it. Of
course, society will be the ultimate judge. But you have passion for writing
and that matters more than society's perception about what you should be
doing.

------
Mz
It is usually a pleasure to be able to do something well. But I have come to
believe society is not "owed" one's (supposed) "best" talents. I have come to
believe that the common social message that "if you are good at something, it
is a Gift and you have an obligation to better society with your Gifts" is
incredibly sick. I think it does enormous harm, to both individuals and
society.

~~~
robg
Who decides "best"?

------
idlewords
Wank on, you crazy diamond.

------
RoyG
It would have been a much better article if he did it with HTML 5 and Canvas.

