Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

This has all the signatures of a bad day barfed out as incoherent rage on a keyboard. I've been there, and I can day with the auhtority of experience:

Ryan Dahl will regret this post for years to come.




That's because you have simply no idea what he's talking about.

Alan Kay once said, "Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid with millions of bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, but just done by brute force and thousands of slaves."


I'm pretty sure Egyptian pyramids are made of fairly substantial chunks of stone, probably weren't built by slaves and as they are nearly 5000 years old they surely must have rather a lot of structural integrity.

NB I've been to the center of Khafra's pyramid at Giza and I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have done this if it hadn't exhibited rather a lot of structural integrity.


So... you're defending that type of architecture? Reading these other comments here, you're not alone it seems. No wonder we're in the mess we're in. Why bother looking for constructs like the arch? You want a big building? Just pile rocks in a heap.

PS. yes, yes, yes, there is irony in Dr. Kay's quote in that the Giza pyramids are of almost magical construction. He meant it metaphorically.


Wait... what? Dude, the invention of the arch was a big deal, and it came later. Forgive the Egyptians for their inability to do calculus; they were still thinking of shapes in terms of knotted rope.

The great irony of this conversation and its genesis is that it comes from the author of a server-side programming platform who's good points include, "No new techniques required, you already know javascript" and that touts a decades-old cooperative-multitasking approach as "simple" when the end result for the programmer is anything but.


I'm not blaming the Egyptians; I just don't want to be them.

I think we should looking for the arch, and not be happy with piling rocks in a heap.


"piling rocks in a heap"

The Egyptian pyramids are quite incredible bits of engineering - hardly "rocks in a heap".


"So... you're defending that type of architecture?"

No I was nitpicking about some factual inaccuracies about Egyptian pyramids - I wasn't making any comment whatsoever about software.


> That's because you have simply no idea what he's talking about.

I suspect I do. Funny you bring up a Kay quote I've heard that he regrets, but anyways...

The same day this came onto hacker news, Jamis Buck also posted an unintentional counterpoint to Ryan's rant: http://www.jamisbuck.org/presentations/rubyconf2011/index.ht...


Apologies; I'm sure you do. I have a lot of rage at our unwillingness to look at the mess we've made, the extraneous complexity and unmanageability of our systems, and those who seem to defend it.

90 years ago, I think Jamis could have written a similar deck about why cranking a Model-T while pumping the throttle was just the hard work necessary to enjoy driving.

Edit: Funny you bring up a Kay quote I've heard that he regrets

If he regrets such an important and honest quote, he's off my Christmas list! :-)


"90 years ago, I think Jamis could have written a similar deck about why cranking a Model-T while pumping the throttle was just the hard work necessary to enjoy driving."

I feel like these points are contradictory. If it is "all about the user experience" and you're advocating using more sophisticated and cognitively intensive, but conceptually cleaner and more repeatable, processes like the arch... then shouldn't algorithms be important?

It's all about the user experience, right? While our job may be complicated and involve a lot of math; at the end of the day we're to present an approachable front and clean interface to the intent of this complexity.

Or are we just raging because software is hard? I have no sympathy for people who aren't constantly improving themselves. Writing software will probably never be easy; and nothing Ryan has said (or that Node.js does) changes that.


There is a "software crisis". There is no "hardware crisis" and, in fact, has the opposite of "Moore's Law". Both are difficult, right? But we have conquered the latter and we have made few inroads into the latter.

Large systems are almost impossible to create and maintain. Imagine that we could build dog houses and, if we're careful, houses, but nothing bigger that wasn't under constant threat of falling apart? Imagine news headlines of "Chartres Cathedral collapsed again today." And then imagine a response of, "Well, that's because it's hard to build."

What Dr. Kay said, and I'm sure he only backed off of it because it's tiring making these arguments over and over again to people who look on with open mouths, is that there is the equivalent of the arch waiting for us. You, Dave, may not believe it. You may say anyone who complains about houses falling in on themselves just doesn't know it's hard work. I'm saying it's hard work to make them out of toothpicks and dental floss.

The reason I get annoyed in my comments (and had to apologize) is that I've spent 15 years working on a solution and have had nothing but resistance from those who can't see past the state of the art.

You have no sympathy for people who aren't constantly improving themselves. I have no sympathy for an industry that isn't.


So what is your solution?


You're kidding, right? I find his post a bit amusing, and its far from unprofessional. It strikes a lot of programmer nerves, and that's better than being quiet and not asking: why can't it be this way?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: