> VMs, and VM-based languages, are applications that run on top of all that kernel programming.
I'm guessing the vast majority of all modern programming is done using VMs: Python, Java, C#, Lua^, JavaScript^, etc. Basically, if your language uses a runtime, it's likely using a documented or undocumented bytecode and VM. They're pretty important to understand.
> You seem to be arguing that anyone who does web or VM dev doesn't really need to know what happens inside a computer.
That's not my argument. I highly recommend new programmers to understand as much of machine architecture as reasonable. I'm just arguing that there's no place for a systems programmer to be so dismissive toward a web programmer because he/she doesn't know his part of the stack as well as he does. There is always going to be a gap in knowledge about low-level programming between these two specializations. That gap is no reflection on the intelligence or competence of the higher-level programmer.
In this particular case, I believe that Julie has only been programming for a few years. If that's the case, and assuming she only retains a fraction of what she writes about, she's further along than most of us were at that point (me included). Just because many of us bluff and bluster our way through interactions with our peers, and Julie is up-front about her state of knowledge, doesn't mean that she's an inferior programmer (at all). I suspect her honest curiosity will carry her along to the top of our profession in due time.
So if the parent had written something like, "it's so important for new programmers to work on this type of material, and it's heartening to see these kinds of blog posts from younger programmers", then I would have applauded.
That also would have been more in line with the HN guidelines ("avoid gratuitous negativity"), rather than the approach that was actually taken.
^ If you want to advance the "Lua, Python, and JS" aren't VMs, but rather interpreters, you'll need to convince the likes of Mike Pall and Lars Bak that they're not working on a VM (both have explicitly referred to their creations as "VMs").
> python is an interpreted language, and AFAIK it has no concept of a stack,
Here, I could say, "I find it pretty amazing that old-timey[1] 'programmers' fail to understand modern VM architecture". In fact, Python's interpreter (cpython) is partly based on the concept of a stack.
But instead, I'll just explain that most modern VM's are either stack-based or register-based. Stack-based VM's, like Python's, are (not surprisingly) based on a virtual machine that uses a stack as it interprets Python's bytecode. Yes, not the same level of abstraction as the call stack, but it's still a stack.
So instead of expressing dismay at how little modern programmers know about your little corner of the programming world (low-level systems programming), why not spend some time pondering about how so much programming has moved up the stack, and how abstractions have grown multifold.
In the 1970s and 1980s, it used to be that the typical self-taught programmer had to know all the details low-level C and assembly, because that was almost all there was to know, unless you were a high-level Lisp hacker.
I mean, I'm a little surprised at how little some C kernel hackers know about how the modern Web works (particularly regarding async programming patterns; eg, been asked by one why I didn't just use a mutex somewhere in JS program, wasn't trolling.). But then I realize that there's just too much for any but the most exceptional programmers to truly understand the full modern stack, from system architecture, to GPU, to networking, to Web, on so on.
Why not instead welcome how this particular web-focused programmer is interested in these low-level concepts? Is it that it wouldn't give you as much of a chance to show off your knowledge?
I'm guessing the vast majority of all modern programming is done using VMs: Python, Java, C#, Lua^, JavaScript^, etc. Basically, if your language uses a runtime, it's likely using a documented or undocumented bytecode and VM. They're pretty important to understand.
> You seem to be arguing that anyone who does web or VM dev doesn't really need to know what happens inside a computer.
That's not my argument. I highly recommend new programmers to understand as much of machine architecture as reasonable. I'm just arguing that there's no place for a systems programmer to be so dismissive toward a web programmer because he/she doesn't know his part of the stack as well as he does. There is always going to be a gap in knowledge about low-level programming between these two specializations. That gap is no reflection on the intelligence or competence of the higher-level programmer.
In this particular case, I believe that Julie has only been programming for a few years. If that's the case, and assuming she only retains a fraction of what she writes about, she's further along than most of us were at that point (me included). Just because many of us bluff and bluster our way through interactions with our peers, and Julie is up-front about her state of knowledge, doesn't mean that she's an inferior programmer (at all). I suspect her honest curiosity will carry her along to the top of our profession in due time.
So if the parent had written something like, "it's so important for new programmers to work on this type of material, and it's heartening to see these kinds of blog posts from younger programmers", then I would have applauded.
That also would have been more in line with the HN guidelines ("avoid gratuitous negativity"), rather than the approach that was actually taken.
^ If you want to advance the "Lua, Python, and JS" aren't VMs, but rather interpreters, you'll need to convince the likes of Mike Pall and Lars Bak that they're not working on a VM (both have explicitly referred to their creations as "VMs").