Lord of the Hackers?
March 8, 2002 7:46 AM Subscribe
Lord of the Hackers? Sherri Turkle writes in the NYT:
Adolescents are wise in the psychology of computer games and Middle Earth. They live in a world they can't control, in a body that seems increasingly alien. To them the computer world is soothing, offering reassurance through mastery. Just as each episode of "The Lord of the Rings" presents a danger and each has its resolution, so many adolescent boys move from one block of intransigent code to another, from one screen to the next, declaring victory as they go. But this distinction is about more than gender; it is about ways of looking at the world — real, imagined or computer-generated. Some pioneers of computing had a style of working that rewarded risk. They spoke of programming itself as though it were a dangerous quest. At M.I.T. computer hackers even had a name for it: "sport death." To pull back from the impending doom of a system crash required near magic, an almost empathetic knowledge of the intricacies of code. For this community, a certain bravado came to be seen as valuable, even necessary, beyond the world of programming.Any programmer-hobbits care to comment on this? This doesn't exactly describe my feelings when unsnarling html.
Yes, that's exactly the way you feel, and that's why it's kind of embarassing to admit to people that programming is actually fulfilling.
posted by goneill at 8:05 AM on March 8, 2002
posted by goneill at 8:05 AM on March 8, 2002
A small correction. When I was a youth and a computer geek the expression "sport death" had nothing to do with hacking. It had more to do with consuming excessive drugs, playing in traffic, or initiating random destruction. You know, actually playing with injury or death. Maybe the meaning has changed.
posted by rdr at 8:09 AM on March 8, 2002
posted by rdr at 8:09 AM on March 8, 2002
It's pretty true. I don't want to downplay the complexity of HTML or anything (browser compatibility is nasty, nasty stuff), but programming is a deeper, darker dungeon.
There's something visceral about being deep inside the computer, the system, watching it think in slow motion, instruction by instruction, moment by moment ... observing the ebb and flow of bits of data, of logic, of truth and falsehood and light and dark ... about finally wrapping your brain around the complex dance of a hundred causes and effects that results in a particular erroneous result, its true cause hiterto obscured by a distance of thousands of those "moments" from the culprit ... about finding that bug, and killing it, with the sheer force and strength of your mind, because there is nothing else in this world.
For those of us who love it, we live in Middle Earth — or the Matrix, or the Metaverse, or what have you — every day.
(Um, I think I should fix my coffee now.)
posted by dsandl at 8:42 AM on March 8, 2002
There's something visceral about being deep inside the computer, the system, watching it think in slow motion, instruction by instruction, moment by moment ... observing the ebb and flow of bits of data, of logic, of truth and falsehood and light and dark ... about finally wrapping your brain around the complex dance of a hundred causes and effects that results in a particular erroneous result, its true cause hiterto obscured by a distance of thousands of those "moments" from the culprit ... about finding that bug, and killing it, with the sheer force and strength of your mind, because there is nothing else in this world.
For those of us who love it, we live in Middle Earth — or the Matrix, or the Metaverse, or what have you — every day.
(Um, I think I should fix my coffee now.)
posted by dsandl at 8:42 AM on March 8, 2002
i've never used the phrase "sport death" myself. i do feel programming with (x)html is fulfilling, however, because i am solving problems (albeit structural and layout problems) thanks to shitty browsers or confusing standards. (did you know that if you set the width property via css in an xhtml document, the margins are set to zero rather than left at their default ('auto')?)
i feel this article does programmers a disservice, however. it boxes them into roles and definitions not of their choosing, but of the author's choosing. i found the logic in comparing LotR and programming to be specious, really.
My 10-year-old daughter has noticed the resemblance between "The Lord of the Rings" and computer games — in both substance and form. There are no girls in either, she says, because "girls don't do these kinds of adventures."
oh really; she found the connection between LotR and games quite well, did she? with no help from Turkle, of course.
what bothers me about reporters such as these is that they seem so quick to take advantage of the history and culture of computers while failing to really grasp it. they usually end up inventing or wandering off in the wrong direction, as Turkle has done.
posted by moz at 8:47 AM on March 8, 2002
i feel this article does programmers a disservice, however. it boxes them into roles and definitions not of their choosing, but of the author's choosing. i found the logic in comparing LotR and programming to be specious, really.
My 10-year-old daughter has noticed the resemblance between "The Lord of the Rings" and computer games — in both substance and form. There are no girls in either, she says, because "girls don't do these kinds of adventures."
oh really; she found the connection between LotR and games quite well, did she? with no help from Turkle, of course.
what bothers me about reporters such as these is that they seem so quick to take advantage of the history and culture of computers while failing to really grasp it. they usually end up inventing or wandering off in the wrong direction, as Turkle has done.
posted by moz at 8:47 AM on March 8, 2002
i speak as a programmer by profession and by education (5 years of experience with C and knowledge of more programming languages than one should care to admit while not being faculty in a university), by the way.
posted by moz at 8:51 AM on March 8, 2002
posted by moz at 8:51 AM on March 8, 2002
rdr: MIT has long had its very own culture of jargon. Sometimes it even spills over into the rest of the world.
This is, of course, a vast exaggeration, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have some truth. I do derive satisfaction from successful coding (or even just system troubleshooting, more my bailiwick). I think Turkle exaggerates, though, by using this particular metaphor; one can derive the same satisfaction through physical sports. (So saith a fat man.) Turkle's written this way about the culture before, alas -- valid insight wrapped in overarching metaphors that emphasize how different it all is. Maybe in the 1980s it was that removed from society, but to speak of it that way today is, um, twee.
posted by dhartung at 8:53 AM on March 8, 2002
This is, of course, a vast exaggeration, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have some truth. I do derive satisfaction from successful coding (or even just system troubleshooting, more my bailiwick). I think Turkle exaggerates, though, by using this particular metaphor; one can derive the same satisfaction through physical sports. (So saith a fat man.) Turkle's written this way about the culture before, alas -- valid insight wrapped in overarching metaphors that emphasize how different it all is. Maybe in the 1980s it was that removed from society, but to speak of it that way today is, um, twee.
posted by dhartung at 8:53 AM on March 8, 2002
Yes, I wouldn't really call HTML programming. Partially because it doesn't evoke this sort of feeling. Real programming feels like mathematics in that there is a very simple set of building block instructions with which can be done whatever you can imagine and figure out how to do. It is so straightforward, yet so complex and mystical at the same time. Sadly, HTML is just arbitrary and frustrating. Sometimes it is interesting solving HTML problems, but most of the time, I find it to be a pain in the ass, because things are always changing out form under you, or just not working as advertized. What this has to do with LoTR I don't know, except that there is always someone with more power and arcane knowledge than you, and usually they end up saving your ass.
posted by donkeymon at 9:06 AM on March 8, 2002
posted by donkeymon at 9:06 AM on March 8, 2002
HTML, XHTML, DHTML, WML, &c... != programming
HTML, XHTML, DHTML, WML, &c... == scripting
big difference.
posted by TiggleTaggleTiger at 9:13 AM on March 8, 2002
HTML, XHTML, DHTML, WML, &c... == scripting
big difference.
posted by TiggleTaggleTiger at 9:13 AM on March 8, 2002
I am a girl programmer, and I am not that into Magic the gathering, lord of the rings, and stuff like that. There is a problem-solving aspect of programming that I imagine there is (was?) in Dungeons and Dragons and stuff. Those games are for people with creativity and imagination, and mathematical minds. I think that programmers have a lot of those qualities. Perhaps the role-playing halls are breeding grounds for programmers, but I don't think it is necessary.
There is something fulfilling in the problem-solving aspect of programming that I miss when I try to go on hiaitus, and say travel somewhere. I do think though that this has been mostly the world of boys. The Computer Science department where I did my undergrad was about 10% female, and it was a little bit exclusionary in the sense that I didn't come from the nerd boy culture that many of the students did. This link between Lord of the Rings and programming is genuine, I believe, but it isn't the only link between our culture and programming.
I would not agree that HTML is programming, except, as stated above, in the arcane knowledge aspect (I hate this aspect...). There is something transcendent about programming with a lambda complete language, you can solve problems, and the results are immediate. It's a good profession for results oriented people.
I wish that I did more work to influence girls to try programming.
posted by goneill at 9:23 AM on March 8, 2002
There is something fulfilling in the problem-solving aspect of programming that I miss when I try to go on hiaitus, and say travel somewhere. I do think though that this has been mostly the world of boys. The Computer Science department where I did my undergrad was about 10% female, and it was a little bit exclusionary in the sense that I didn't come from the nerd boy culture that many of the students did. This link between Lord of the Rings and programming is genuine, I believe, but it isn't the only link between our culture and programming.
I would not agree that HTML is programming, except, as stated above, in the arcane knowledge aspect (I hate this aspect...). There is something transcendent about programming with a lambda complete language, you can solve problems, and the results are immediate. It's a good profession for results oriented people.
I wish that I did more work to influence girls to try programming.
posted by goneill at 9:23 AM on March 8, 2002
Programming to me,(and aside from a little HTML, I haven't done any programming since age 13, although many close freids of mine are programmers) seems to be the place where art and science meet; the creativity of art combined with the rigor and precision of science.
This didn't occur to me till my better half was compiling her master's thesis in creative writing. She spent about 3 solid weeks sitting at her laptop, going over very poem with a fine tooth comb. Sometime's she'd get frustrated with me being underfoot and shove a ten-dollar bill into my hand and say "Go get a beer or something!" I'd make a mock sad face and start galumphing towards the door. She'd laugh and say "I'm sorry." To which I said "It's OK, I understand, you're just debugging." "Yeah, I'm debugging."
It occured to me that Lisa would make a great programmer, too. I bought her a book on it, but while she found it interesting, she hasn't taken up coding yet.
But I still think the link between creative writing(be it LOTR or War & Peace) is an interesting and valid one.
posted by jonmc at 9:44 AM on March 8, 2002
This didn't occur to me till my better half was compiling her master's thesis in creative writing. She spent about 3 solid weeks sitting at her laptop, going over very poem with a fine tooth comb. Sometime's she'd get frustrated with me being underfoot and shove a ten-dollar bill into my hand and say "Go get a beer or something!" I'd make a mock sad face and start galumphing towards the door. She'd laugh and say "I'm sorry." To which I said "It's OK, I understand, you're just debugging." "Yeah, I'm debugging."
It occured to me that Lisa would make a great programmer, too. I bought her a book on it, but while she found it interesting, she hasn't taken up coding yet.
But I still think the link between creative writing(be it LOTR or War & Peace) is an interesting and valid one.
posted by jonmc at 9:44 AM on March 8, 2002
Just yesterday, I saw a guy in the gym wearing a shirt bearing the phrase "HTML is not CODE". While it seems like a desperate grasp at having something to be elitist about, most "real" programmers share that sentiment. HTML is too high-level, the only real coders work on bare metal, etc. To a certain degree this is true, but at times the distinction is petty and insignificant.
For example, "HTML is not CODE" is a false statement. It is code. HTML tags are code. However, the connotation of the word "code" implies something like C or another "real" language. This is a very superficial and desperate attempt at validating one's own geekiness, as is making the distinction between "scripting" and "programming". They're both programming. You're programming a computer. Sure, one's probably harder than the other, but it's splitting hairs. There's all kinds of nitpicking distinctions in various programming communities, ranging from the LISP/Scheme folks who assert that imperative languages are tools for the weak, to Linux kiddies who piss on each other about Python and Perl, to C programmers who think anyone who codes at a higher level of abstraction is inferior. It's exhausting, and none of it matters.
Also, goneill: what is a "lambda complete" language? I've studied lots of lambda calculus but never heard this terminology used.
posted by Succa at 9:53 AM on March 8, 2002
For example, "HTML is not CODE" is a false statement. It is code. HTML tags are code. However, the connotation of the word "code" implies something like C or another "real" language. This is a very superficial and desperate attempt at validating one's own geekiness, as is making the distinction between "scripting" and "programming". They're both programming. You're programming a computer. Sure, one's probably harder than the other, but it's splitting hairs. There's all kinds of nitpicking distinctions in various programming communities, ranging from the LISP/Scheme folks who assert that imperative languages are tools for the weak, to Linux kiddies who piss on each other about Python and Perl, to C programmers who think anyone who codes at a higher level of abstraction is inferior. It's exhausting, and none of it matters.
Also, goneill: what is a "lambda complete" language? I've studied lots of lambda calculus but never heard this terminology used.
posted by Succa at 9:53 AM on March 8, 2002
Yaawwwnn..yet another person watches the movie 'Hackers' and talks to MIT folk and thinks that's what a programmer is.
To me, being a programmer is like being an architect of house made of invisible material, only very few can see it, but once you can, it's a beautiful sight.
As the scripting/non-scripting/programming argument, pure language bigotism. If you can program in it, it is programming. Of course you can't program in HTML, you can only markup, just like .rtf. But Javascript, DHTML is programming, just as is PHP, ASP, C++, Visual Basic, Java. Any language where you can make the computer follow your instructions is programming, so this would include Excel macros, et al.
posted by patrickje at 10:22 AM on March 8, 2002
To me, being a programmer is like being an architect of house made of invisible material, only very few can see it, but once you can, it's a beautiful sight.
As the scripting/non-scripting/programming argument, pure language bigotism. If you can program in it, it is programming. Of course you can't program in HTML, you can only markup, just like .rtf. But Javascript, DHTML is programming, just as is PHP, ASP, C++, Visual Basic, Java. Any language where you can make the computer follow your instructions is programming, so this would include Excel macros, et al.
posted by patrickje at 10:22 AM on March 8, 2002
I'm a writer, and my brother is a programmer and network engineer. I've found in various conversations with him that there are some definite connections in the basic philosophy of work...very similar to what dsandl described above. A big part of it, I think, has to do with the idea that when the thing that you're creating doesn't work, you don't--can't--write it off as a failure and do something else. He once told me that when real programmers face a glitch which to all reasoning and analysis should not exist, they do not get depressed, they get motivated. Something similar happens in writing if you take it seriously, i.e. if you see it as more than just a bunch of stuff you made up, if you want it to work aesthetically. There's a sort of virtual labyrinth you have to negotiate in order to get the results you want, and the fact that other people can't see it as well makes it all the more important for you to come out the other side.
Speaking of MIT and fantasy vs. science, I feel someone ought to mention Einstein's Dreams by Alan Lightman, who teaches both physics and creative writing there.
posted by bingo at 10:44 AM on March 8, 2002
Speaking of MIT and fantasy vs. science, I feel someone ought to mention Einstein's Dreams by Alan Lightman, who teaches both physics and creative writing there.
posted by bingo at 10:44 AM on March 8, 2002
goneil: take heart. my cs (and related math/physics) courses averaged one or none females for approximately every 20 males. i found that very curious, because my ap math class in high school was about fifty-fifty.
[can it really be 20 years ago? that just doesn't seem possible.]
posted by lescour at 10:49 AM on March 8, 2002
[can it really be 20 years ago? that just doesn't seem possible.]
posted by lescour at 10:49 AM on March 8, 2002
"HTML is not CODE"
Well, I've been doing this for about 11 years now, I was a D&D geek, I read LoTR every year, as it's a favorite, and I can understand the adventure/sense of accomplishment.
When I'm working with HTML/XHTML/XML/DOM/ECMAScript, it's always a bit of an underwhelming feeling when something finally works. More of a "damn, I wish this combination of activities had been documented/debugged by the freakin vendor".
Moving back to pure coding, be it Python, Java, Delphi or C# there are more of those "I am inwincible!" moments when things work out...
Good example, recently I got a request on how to do something via DHTML/JScript in the browser. I spent a couple hours and finally hacked together a solution, sent it to the person. A day later, "thanks, but this isn't exactly what we need". A quick call, and I find they are embedding a browser control. 5 minutes later I had the full solution, as I was able to use a real programming language, and access the browser's full object-model.
posted by jkaczor at 10:56 AM on March 8, 2002
Well, I've been doing this for about 11 years now, I was a D&D geek, I read LoTR every year, as it's a favorite, and I can understand the adventure/sense of accomplishment.
When I'm working with HTML/XHTML/XML/DOM/ECMAScript, it's always a bit of an underwhelming feeling when something finally works. More of a "damn, I wish this combination of activities had been documented/debugged by the freakin vendor".
Moving back to pure coding, be it Python, Java, Delphi or C# there are more of those "I am inwincible!" moments when things work out...
Good example, recently I got a request on how to do something via DHTML/JScript in the browser. I spent a couple hours and finally hacked together a solution, sent it to the person. A day later, "thanks, but this isn't exactly what we need". A quick call, and I find they are embedding a browser control. 5 minutes later I had the full solution, as I was able to use a real programming language, and access the browser's full object-model.
posted by jkaczor at 10:56 AM on March 8, 2002
"scripting," as it is commonly used today, is another term for programming; there is really no difference between the two words. scripting carries an implication that the environment in which you work is an interpreted one, such as perl, php, and python. programming is a neutral term.
HTML concerns itself only with structural metadata (e.g., not only is this a block of text, it is a "paragraph" so noted by the p tag). it's closer to languages such as TeX and PostScript than C, Perl, or whatever language you may recall. these languages are layout languages (to varying degrees, with html being agnostic of layout if without css but knowledgable of structure), and while they may share some characteristics of proper programming languages, they really should be considered conceptually seperate.
posted by moz at 10:56 AM on March 8, 2002
HTML concerns itself only with structural metadata (e.g., not only is this a block of text, it is a "paragraph" so noted by the p tag). it's closer to languages such as TeX and PostScript than C, Perl, or whatever language you may recall. these languages are layout languages (to varying degrees, with html being agnostic of layout if without css but knowledgable of structure), and while they may share some characteristics of proper programming languages, they really should be considered conceptually seperate.
posted by moz at 10:56 AM on March 8, 2002
As someone that can code, when I want to, and works in HTML, ect, HTML is not true code, it is mark-up. It has some coding aspects when with you throw in XML, DHTML, WML and try to position it all with CSS. Running down that one line that screwing the code or a missing bracket on a page is all exhausting, frustrating and fun.
posted by bjgeiger at 11:07 AM on March 8, 2002
posted by bjgeiger at 11:07 AM on March 8, 2002
I agree with you jkaczor, and while some may have taken offense at my distinction between turing complete and non-turing complete languages, to this programmer anyway, they feel different. I am currently working in VBScript writing DTS packages, it's just not all that fun to work in a language like this because it lacks extensibility. No matter how smart I am the environment is too contained, it feels like I am working in a small box, instead of toying with the gods. This may seem like a simplistic difference, but it's an important one to me (the programmer). I would appreciate working with a more complete language for my own satisfaction. I know that there is a difference between scripting languages and programming languages, and even if I lacked the language to convey that difference I would still be able to feel it.
posted by goneill at 11:11 AM on March 8, 2002
posted by goneill at 11:11 AM on March 8, 2002
HTML is programming the layout and interface for a user to interact with an underlying application through an internet web browser.
Consider it coding the GUI.
Naturally, there are people more gifted in doing this sort of design coding than application coding. If a geek wants to enforce some sort of hierarchy to programming languages and the people who use them (the term HTML monkey pretty much sums up what most java/perl/vb developers think), then suit yourself.
But HTML is still a programming language.
posted by linux at 11:33 AM on March 8, 2002
Consider it coding the GUI.
Naturally, there are people more gifted in doing this sort of design coding than application coding. If a geek wants to enforce some sort of hierarchy to programming languages and the people who use them (the term HTML monkey pretty much sums up what most java/perl/vb developers think), then suit yourself.
But HTML is still a programming language.
posted by linux at 11:33 AM on March 8, 2002
goneill:
I am currently working in VBScript writing DTS packages as in a long time? I've done this but usually just the package or two I've needed, 1-2 days work, I can't imagine doing it any longer than that.
posted by patrickje at 11:46 AM on March 8, 2002
I am currently working in VBScript writing DTS packages as in a long time? I've done this but usually just the package or two I've needed, 1-2 days work, I can't imagine doing it any longer than that.
posted by patrickje at 11:46 AM on March 8, 2002
linux:
I don't believe HTML is a programming language, it has no control structures i.e. If..else, for...next, etc. Javascript on the other hand is a programming language.
I'm not trying to be condescending, I mean I spend a lot of time hand coding HTML, but it's layout, not programming.
posted by patrickje at 11:50 AM on March 8, 2002
I don't believe HTML is a programming language, it has no control structures i.e. If..else, for...next, etc. Javascript on the other hand is a programming language.
I'm not trying to be condescending, I mean I spend a lot of time hand coding HTML, but it's layout, not programming.
posted by patrickje at 11:50 AM on March 8, 2002
HTML: Hyper Text Markup Language
ie, it's a markup language for hyper text, rather than programming code. It can still be difficult to get your head round.
As for coding, it's a job. So is journalism, but apparently with more room for incompetence.
posted by walrus at 11:56 AM on March 8, 2002
ie, it's a markup language for hyper text, rather than programming code. It can still be difficult to get your head round.
As for coding, it's a job. So is journalism, but apparently with more room for incompetence.
posted by walrus at 11:56 AM on March 8, 2002
patrickje:
For the time being anyway, there is a huge backlog of DTS packages at my company, I'm a frequent MeFi contributor.
The whole infrastructure where I work is set up for DTS Packages.
It's quite tedious. Such is the nature of job markets.
I would less rather do browser scripting though, as I find that too nitpicky.
posted by goneill at 11:57 AM on March 8, 2002
For the time being anyway, there is a huge backlog of DTS packages at my company, I'm a frequent MeFi contributor.
The whole infrastructure where I work is set up for DTS Packages.
It's quite tedious. Such is the nature of job markets.
I would less rather do browser scripting though, as I find that too nitpicky.
posted by goneill at 11:57 AM on March 8, 2002
My official title at my company is webmaster. My specialty is web-based appplications. Most of my apps are XHTML-validated, and are coded in a combination of PHP and Perl. I sometimes use C for backend spit&bailin' wire. I don't think HTML is a coding language because there are structures, but they aren't logic structures. Instead, HTML is a syntax for formatting information. If HTML is a language, then so is the code in the data files that Microsoft Word generates.
I don't think that many people have a perception of what programmers do on a day to day basis, and that's where the disconnect happens.
Bingo: As a writer, you know that even if you don't hit the reader's impressions right on, they can still perceive your message. The difference between writing and coding is that if you mess up one bit of syntax (grammar?) or forget one bit of punctuation, your message is incomprehensible to the end user (the computer). Also, you can't write code prosaically... well, you can, but it's going to be slow. Programmers write for speed and efficiency, more like a telegraph than an essay.
posted by SpecialK at 12:20 PM on March 8, 2002
I don't think that many people have a perception of what programmers do on a day to day basis, and that's where the disconnect happens.
Bingo: As a writer, you know that even if you don't hit the reader's impressions right on, they can still perceive your message. The difference between writing and coding is that if you mess up one bit of syntax (grammar?) or forget one bit of punctuation, your message is incomprehensible to the end user (the computer). Also, you can't write code prosaically... well, you can, but it's going to be slow. Programmers write for speed and efficiency, more like a telegraph than an essay.
posted by SpecialK at 12:20 PM on March 8, 2002
Gadzooks. I could kick myself for writing, "This doesn't exactly describe my feelings when unsnarling html."
Fwiw, I don't think of html as a programming language, certainly not in the same category as Perl. What about PHP?
But what I found more interesting, and which has only been briefly touched upon, are the connections the author makes between LOTR and Programming Culture.
Oh well, guess I'll phrase the question differently next time. Fascinating responses, either way.
posted by mecran01 at 12:49 PM on March 8, 2002
Fwiw, I don't think of html as a programming language, certainly not in the same category as Perl. What about PHP?
But what I found more interesting, and which has only been briefly touched upon, are the connections the author makes between LOTR and Programming Culture.
Oh well, guess I'll phrase the question differently next time. Fascinating responses, either way.
posted by mecran01 at 12:49 PM on March 8, 2002
I'm a programmer & I loved the LOTR, however... this article seems like nothing more than a loose collection of totally garbled metaphors.
Binary perspective? The author seems to be confusing a fantasy world's view of good and evil as clearly differentiated sides with the base-2 numbering system used by computers internally due to hardware constraints. If computers used a base-12 numbering system internally, it wouldn't change how most of us program, except for the occasional person working in assembler. The binary system certainly doesn't lead to a simplified, black & white view of the world. I think we all know how quickly code can grow to incomprehensible complexity.
D&D has little room for psychological ambiguity or complexity? True enough, but what does that have to do with Tolkien? His characters did have depth and complexity. (I'm not quite sure what the connection to programming is supposed to be there.)
Tolkien sucked at writing female characters and the computer industry is dominated by men? True enough, and a pity both ways, but by that same token you have a connection between Tolkien and professional baseball, or a connection between Tolkien and being President of the United States.
Some pioneers of programming embraced risk? And this is different from any other field how? Some people are maverick cowboys, others of us try to get the job done more conservatively. And if this somehow connects to Tolkien, then it also connects to every other adventure novel (fantasy or not) ever written.
I could go on and on, but it seems clear that Ms. Turkle doesn't understand much about programming or LOTR. If I can understand the general point or implication to her piece it seems to be "This is boy's stuff, which is okay for them, but it's simplistic & violent."
Oh, in regards to the debate about HTML & programming? I program mostly in Java, Delphi & ColdFusion. Markup languages don't feel like actual programming to me, but they do feel like an extended part of what programmers do, like designing tables in a database. I don't think I'm programming when I design tables, but it is a part of the overall structure I'm creating.
posted by tdismukes at 1:43 PM on March 8, 2002
Binary perspective? The author seems to be confusing a fantasy world's view of good and evil as clearly differentiated sides with the base-2 numbering system used by computers internally due to hardware constraints. If computers used a base-12 numbering system internally, it wouldn't change how most of us program, except for the occasional person working in assembler. The binary system certainly doesn't lead to a simplified, black & white view of the world. I think we all know how quickly code can grow to incomprehensible complexity.
D&D has little room for psychological ambiguity or complexity? True enough, but what does that have to do with Tolkien? His characters did have depth and complexity. (I'm not quite sure what the connection to programming is supposed to be there.)
Tolkien sucked at writing female characters and the computer industry is dominated by men? True enough, and a pity both ways, but by that same token you have a connection between Tolkien and professional baseball, or a connection between Tolkien and being President of the United States.
Some pioneers of programming embraced risk? And this is different from any other field how? Some people are maverick cowboys, others of us try to get the job done more conservatively. And if this somehow connects to Tolkien, then it also connects to every other adventure novel (fantasy or not) ever written.
I could go on and on, but it seems clear that Ms. Turkle doesn't understand much about programming or LOTR. If I can understand the general point or implication to her piece it seems to be "This is boy's stuff, which is okay for them, but it's simplistic & violent."
Oh, in regards to the debate about HTML & programming? I program mostly in Java, Delphi & ColdFusion. Markup languages don't feel like actual programming to me, but they do feel like an extended part of what programmers do, like designing tables in a database. I don't think I'm programming when I design tables, but it is a part of the overall structure I'm creating.
posted by tdismukes at 1:43 PM on March 8, 2002
goneill:
Still there are worse things you could be doing, I just plowed through a straight week of Crystal Reports. Ugghh...
posted by patrickje at 2:26 PM on March 8, 2002
Still there are worse things you could be doing, I just plowed through a straight week of Crystal Reports. Ugghh...
posted by patrickje at 2:26 PM on March 8, 2002
OH MY GOD... this is so sad. that's the other half of my job... email me if you need help - (Crystal Reports are impossibly user-unfriendly). Surprisingly enough there isn't really a lot of community support, either.
posted by goneill at 2:31 PM on March 8, 2002
posted by goneill at 2:31 PM on March 8, 2002
moz:
"scripting," as it is commonly used today, is another term for programming; there is really no difference between the two words. scripting carries an implication that the environment in which you work is an interpreted one, such as perl, php, and python. programming is a neutral term.
I think you're missing another side to it. The term "script" is usually used to describe glorified macros: mini-programs that automate things the user could have done themself. Scripts get other programs to do the real work. Shell scripts, VBScript, AppleScript, and most Perl scripts fit this definition. A "scripting language", then, is one designed primarily to communicate with other applications, where a "programming language" would be the more ordinary sort of language that focuses on manipulating its own data.
The only difference between an "interpreted" and "compiled" language these days seems to be whether the intermediate representation is converted into machine language before or after you run the program.
Now, the article: there's not much substance to critique. It's a dozen paragraphs of assertions, backed up by a single quote from the author's 10-year-old daughter. She's basically making an extended analogy and passing it off as some kind of sociological insight. The analogy, however, strains quickly.
That culture has a particular way of using the computer to think about the world, a binary perspective that is appealing but problematic.
This implies that "computer culture" is monolithic, which it certainly isn't, and I'm not entirely sure what "a binary perspective" is supposed to mean. Is she implying that programmers, by some mystical osmotic force, end up looking for simplistically opposing alternatives in every situation? She elaborates in that direction later in the article:
But the work of J. R. R. Tolkien captures a certain computational aesthetic that is reflected in the mass culture. This sensibility tends to be binary. Perhaps such simplicity helps explain the current popularity of "The Lord of the Rings"; at a time when friends and enemies are sometimes indistinguishable, the black-and-white world of fantasy holds a particular allure.
She doesn't seem to have any particular idea what she's talking about. Yes, computers are fundamentally based on binary digits and logical manipulations thereof. Non-programmers seem to think this is the coolest, weirdest thing, and often seem to believe that programmers must have some special mental circuitry which allows them to deal with it, and that this must somehow colour the way they look at the world. No, really, it's just math, and simple math at that: the only thing remotely mysterious about it is that you have to learn how different number bases work. Anyone who's been through the sixth grade can do it.
Day-to-day programming has about as much to do with binary math as day-to-day cooking has to do with atomic physics.
Programming is an exercise in metaphors. Every software system is an abstraction laid on top of simpler systems. Most programming terms are ordinary words pressed into service as an analogy; the original meaning is quickly forgotten. One common data structure, for example, is called a "stack" because it reminded its inventor of a stack of plates at a cafeteria; another is called a "semaphore" because it works kind of like the railroad signal. Thinking up names for the things you're creating, and patterns for describing and thinking about them, is a constant part of a programmer's job. Which leads to the following:
They spoke of programming itself as though it were a dangerous quest.
Well, yes: another metaphor. Programming can often feel like wizardry: many hours of patient study yield cryptic knowledge which can be used to wield great power. But it can also feel like music or architecture or just plain tinkering.
The author seems to think that programmers actually believe these metaphors, somehow; that, because programmers sometimes use imagery borrowed from Tolkien's fantasy world (along with pretty much every other fantasy world!), there must be something in common. She didn't bother to dredge up any sociology to support her points, and doesn't seem to understand either programming or Middle-earth; in the end the article is wrong, when it's not meaningless, and insulting as well.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:02 PM on March 8, 2002
"scripting," as it is commonly used today, is another term for programming; there is really no difference between the two words. scripting carries an implication that the environment in which you work is an interpreted one, such as perl, php, and python. programming is a neutral term.
I think you're missing another side to it. The term "script" is usually used to describe glorified macros: mini-programs that automate things the user could have done themself. Scripts get other programs to do the real work. Shell scripts, VBScript, AppleScript, and most Perl scripts fit this definition. A "scripting language", then, is one designed primarily to communicate with other applications, where a "programming language" would be the more ordinary sort of language that focuses on manipulating its own data.
The only difference between an "interpreted" and "compiled" language these days seems to be whether the intermediate representation is converted into machine language before or after you run the program.
Now, the article: there's not much substance to critique. It's a dozen paragraphs of assertions, backed up by a single quote from the author's 10-year-old daughter. She's basically making an extended analogy and passing it off as some kind of sociological insight. The analogy, however, strains quickly.
That culture has a particular way of using the computer to think about the world, a binary perspective that is appealing but problematic.
This implies that "computer culture" is monolithic, which it certainly isn't, and I'm not entirely sure what "a binary perspective" is supposed to mean. Is she implying that programmers, by some mystical osmotic force, end up looking for simplistically opposing alternatives in every situation? She elaborates in that direction later in the article:
But the work of J. R. R. Tolkien captures a certain computational aesthetic that is reflected in the mass culture. This sensibility tends to be binary. Perhaps such simplicity helps explain the current popularity of "The Lord of the Rings"; at a time when friends and enemies are sometimes indistinguishable, the black-and-white world of fantasy holds a particular allure.
She doesn't seem to have any particular idea what she's talking about. Yes, computers are fundamentally based on binary digits and logical manipulations thereof. Non-programmers seem to think this is the coolest, weirdest thing, and often seem to believe that programmers must have some special mental circuitry which allows them to deal with it, and that this must somehow colour the way they look at the world. No, really, it's just math, and simple math at that: the only thing remotely mysterious about it is that you have to learn how different number bases work. Anyone who's been through the sixth grade can do it.
Day-to-day programming has about as much to do with binary math as day-to-day cooking has to do with atomic physics.
Programming is an exercise in metaphors. Every software system is an abstraction laid on top of simpler systems. Most programming terms are ordinary words pressed into service as an analogy; the original meaning is quickly forgotten. One common data structure, for example, is called a "stack" because it reminded its inventor of a stack of plates at a cafeteria; another is called a "semaphore" because it works kind of like the railroad signal. Thinking up names for the things you're creating, and patterns for describing and thinking about them, is a constant part of a programmer's job. Which leads to the following:
They spoke of programming itself as though it were a dangerous quest.
Well, yes: another metaphor. Programming can often feel like wizardry: many hours of patient study yield cryptic knowledge which can be used to wield great power. But it can also feel like music or architecture or just plain tinkering.
The author seems to think that programmers actually believe these metaphors, somehow; that, because programmers sometimes use imagery borrowed from Tolkien's fantasy world (along with pretty much every other fantasy world!), there must be something in common. She didn't bother to dredge up any sociology to support her points, and doesn't seem to understand either programming or Middle-earth; in the end the article is wrong, when it's not meaningless, and insulting as well.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:02 PM on March 8, 2002
mars: (dark, long and geeky; skip if uninterested.)
I think you're missing another side to it. The term "script" is usually used to describe glorified macros: mini-programs that automate things the user could have done themself. Scripts get other programs to do the real work. Shell scripts, VBScript, AppleScript, and most Perl scripts fit this definition. A "scripting language", then, is one designed primarily to communicate with other applications, where a "programming language" would be the more ordinary sort of language that focuses on manipulating its own data.
while i agree that the origins of the word "script" probably had a lot to do with running external programs (e.g. shell scripting with the bourne shell), i disagree that using the term "script" today implies that the program primarily uses other programs to do its work. largely this is a matter of semantics and preference; perhaps you know people who agree with you, though i know people who agree with my way. i won't waste your time arguing the point, for it won't get us anywhere.
The only difference between an "interpreted" and "compiled" language these days seems to be whether the intermediate representation is converted into machine language before or after you run the program.
i think the difference between a compiled and an interpreted language is pretty simple: if the computer can run the program directly, in one form or another, the language from which the program derives has been compiled. if the computer needs the help of another program to directly execute the program, then the program is interpreted. (so even though the processor needed the help of a secondary program to compile a program on the fly via JIT compilation, or dynamic recompilation, it did not need any aid in directly executing the result of said processes.)
posted by moz at 3:42 PM on March 8, 2002
I think you're missing another side to it. The term "script" is usually used to describe glorified macros: mini-programs that automate things the user could have done themself. Scripts get other programs to do the real work. Shell scripts, VBScript, AppleScript, and most Perl scripts fit this definition. A "scripting language", then, is one designed primarily to communicate with other applications, where a "programming language" would be the more ordinary sort of language that focuses on manipulating its own data.
while i agree that the origins of the word "script" probably had a lot to do with running external programs (e.g. shell scripting with the bourne shell), i disagree that using the term "script" today implies that the program primarily uses other programs to do its work. largely this is a matter of semantics and preference; perhaps you know people who agree with you, though i know people who agree with my way. i won't waste your time arguing the point, for it won't get us anywhere.
The only difference between an "interpreted" and "compiled" language these days seems to be whether the intermediate representation is converted into machine language before or after you run the program.
i think the difference between a compiled and an interpreted language is pretty simple: if the computer can run the program directly, in one form or another, the language from which the program derives has been compiled. if the computer needs the help of another program to directly execute the program, then the program is interpreted. (so even though the processor needed the help of a secondary program to compile a program on the fly via JIT compilation, or dynamic recompilation, it did not need any aid in directly executing the result of said processes.)
posted by moz at 3:42 PM on March 8, 2002
Feh.
I am a programmer at a company that specializes in fantasy roleplaying games, and I don't think of programming in this way at all.
To me, being a programmer is like being an architect of house made of invisible material, only very few can see it, but once you can, it's a beautiful sight.
Yeah, that's more like it. In the course of making some system that has a specific purpose or function, we have the opportunity to make a lot of art that only ourselves (and possibly, other programmers who study the code) can appreciate.
posted by Foosnark at 5:20 PM on March 8, 2002
I am a programmer at a company that specializes in fantasy roleplaying games, and I don't think of programming in this way at all.
To me, being a programmer is like being an architect of house made of invisible material, only very few can see it, but once you can, it's a beautiful sight.
Yeah, that's more like it. In the course of making some system that has a specific purpose or function, we have the opportunity to make a lot of art that only ourselves (and possibly, other programmers who study the code) can appreciate.
posted by Foosnark at 5:20 PM on March 8, 2002
moz: the industry standard is what matters -- people agreeing with you or mars is immaterial. The standard terminology is this:
"scripting" : producing input for an interpreter
"coding" : producing input for a compiler
The semantics are important.
Interpreters are the set of programs that interact with a source file and generate operating system effects. That's kinda simple, but so are all interpreters -- they run coincidental with their source file, because they are necessary for the source file to have meaning.
Compilers are the set of programs that take a source file, produce a set of lexemes, execute a set of productions based on a limited grammar, link the resulting tokens with appropriate system calls, and output a results file (which may or may not be a linker file or loader file). This resulting file can then be called by the operating system directly, without the need of additional support programs. Which is kind of what you said, but this is more technically accurate.
Now, someone shoot me for knowing this. *sigh*
posted by dwivian at 5:30 PM on March 8, 2002
"scripting" : producing input for an interpreter
"coding" : producing input for a compiler
The semantics are important.
Interpreters are the set of programs that interact with a source file and generate operating system effects. That's kinda simple, but so are all interpreters -- they run coincidental with their source file, because they are necessary for the source file to have meaning.
Compilers are the set of programs that take a source file, produce a set of lexemes, execute a set of productions based on a limited grammar, link the resulting tokens with appropriate system calls, and output a results file (which may or may not be a linker file or loader file). This resulting file can then be called by the operating system directly, without the need of additional support programs. Which is kind of what you said, but this is more technically accurate.
Now, someone shoot me for knowing this. *sigh*
posted by dwivian at 5:30 PM on March 8, 2002
i'm sorry, dwivian, but i've never heard of "coding" used for anything but a neutral purpose. coding is just another word for scripting among the people i know, though i suppose that scripting would imply an interpreted environment.
posted by moz at 5:59 PM on March 8, 2002
posted by moz at 5:59 PM on March 8, 2002
moz: the side-discussion on scripting has been interesting. I think I have come around to your point of view: while there may have been a clear distinction at one time, there is now a great deal of overlap.
It feels like there ought to be a distinction between what I was calling "scripting" and real programming, but you're right: the word "scripting" doesn't do the trick. Perl has pushed up on the high end of scripting, and Java has made interpreted code fashionable again. Add python, C#, Tcl, and others into the mix and you end up with a spectrum of languages for different purposes.
Nobody called BASIC programs "scripts" back in the '70s and early '80s, after all.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:55 AM on March 9, 2002
It feels like there ought to be a distinction between what I was calling "scripting" and real programming, but you're right: the word "scripting" doesn't do the trick. Perl has pushed up on the high end of scripting, and Java has made interpreted code fashionable again. Add python, C#, Tcl, and others into the mix and you end up with a spectrum of languages for different purposes.
Nobody called BASIC programs "scripts" back in the '70s and early '80s, after all.
-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:55 AM on March 9, 2002
[moz:] what bothers me about reporters such as these...
[patrickje:] yet another person watches the movie 'Hackers'...
Turkle isn't a reporter, she's a sociologist, the author of Life on the Screen (1995) and The Second Self (1984), both of them seminal works on the 'sociology of computing' - so she's been thinking and writing about computing culture for at least twenty years.
Of course, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that some of her thoughts about programmers are now out-of-date, as dhartung suggests. But she isn't someone who only just discovered this dang-fangled computer stuff.
posted by rory at 4:13 PM on March 9, 2002
[patrickje:] yet another person watches the movie 'Hackers'...
Turkle isn't a reporter, she's a sociologist, the author of Life on the Screen (1995) and The Second Self (1984), both of them seminal works on the 'sociology of computing' - so she's been thinking and writing about computing culture for at least twenty years.
Of course, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that some of her thoughts about programmers are now out-of-date, as dhartung suggests. But she isn't someone who only just discovered this dang-fangled computer stuff.
posted by rory at 4:13 PM on March 9, 2002
SpecialK: Bingo: As a writer, you know that even if you don't hit the reader's impressions right on, they can still perceive your message. The difference between writing and coding is that if you mess up one bit of syntax (grammar?) or forget one bit of punctuation, your message is incomprehensible to the end user (the computer). Also, you can't write code prosaically... well, you can, but it's going to be slow. Programmers write for speed and efficiency, more like a telegraph than an essay.
Okay, I'm not going to pretend that I understand programming well enough to argue this very deeply. But let me alter the analogy a little. I could write a technically and aesthetically piss-poor story that still communicated a certain idea, and you could write a program that does what it's supposed to do, it's just, say, got an annoying and user-unfriendly interface, and you can only use it on Tuesdays when there's a full moon. In that respect, you would probably consider your job to not really be complete, and I would feel the same way about my writing, especially if it's fiction. The writer is trying, not just to get across an idea, but to get it across properly, and I don't believe it's really a matter of opinion as to whether or not he succeeds. To paraphrase something I heard Ursula Le Guin say at an appearance, there is no variable definition of quality in art. A story you write is like a table you construct (her analogy): it either collapses under pressure, or it does not. The fact that the reader/user/customer can tell what you were trying to do with the project is not the point; the point is that you didn't do it.
posted by bingo at 5:06 PM on March 10, 2002
Okay, I'm not going to pretend that I understand programming well enough to argue this very deeply. But let me alter the analogy a little. I could write a technically and aesthetically piss-poor story that still communicated a certain idea, and you could write a program that does what it's supposed to do, it's just, say, got an annoying and user-unfriendly interface, and you can only use it on Tuesdays when there's a full moon. In that respect, you would probably consider your job to not really be complete, and I would feel the same way about my writing, especially if it's fiction. The writer is trying, not just to get across an idea, but to get it across properly, and I don't believe it's really a matter of opinion as to whether or not he succeeds. To paraphrase something I heard Ursula Le Guin say at an appearance, there is no variable definition of quality in art. A story you write is like a table you construct (her analogy): it either collapses under pressure, or it does not. The fact that the reader/user/customer can tell what you were trying to do with the project is not the point; the point is that you didn't do it.
posted by bingo at 5:06 PM on March 10, 2002
« Older whitney biennial 2002 | The Most Listened To Internet Radio Station In The... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by SpecialK at 7:57 AM on March 8, 2002