
Joel-in-a-box - gthank
http://bitworking.org/news/2010/02/joel-in-a-box
======
kgrin
When I first read the title, I expected something about Joel Spolsky and was
gearing myself up for a giant _sigh_. The actual piece was quite interesting
(not that a piece about a box of Joel wouldn't be, I suppose), and contrasting
that with my expectations made me realize just how well-branded certain names
become within their particular niches.

Consider, for instance, that for different groups, "PG" most likely means a
company (Procter & Gamble), a movie rating, or some other industry-specific
thing.

Obviously this isn't a particularly novel realization; perhaps it's even an
"outsight" [1]. But it did strike me as interesting just how primed I was to
expect a particular association for the relatively common name "Joel" - and
reminded me once more of the importance of stepping out of the proverbial
cocoon once in a while.

[1] <http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/08/15/outsight/>

~~~
chipsy
I have to admit to thinking the same given the context. Pretty much every
"social site" tends towards an echo-chamber, even when it's ostensibly
healthy.

------
zzzmarcus
"Over time specifications have drifted towards being written in a stiff and
officious manner, laden with a sense of, but no actual, rigour; as if they
were the _Doings of Serious Men._ In the old days RFCs were written more along
the lines of "A letter to the implementer", with directions on how to
implement the protocol. Heck, some of them even went so far as to include
code. Actual code!"

Great quote. I love the phrase "Doings of Serious Men." I might have to adopt
it.

------
ZeroGravitas
HTML5 gets abuse from all sorts of unlikely corners, for all sorts of reasons,
but the actual spec writing (and the necessary reverse engineering of existing
Microsoft implementations) seems to be excellent.

