_why's Estate(viewsourcecode.org)
viewsourcecode.org
_why's Estate
https://viewsourcecode.org/why/
114 comments
Random message boards like this were my favourite thing of the early 2000s. The personalities that appeared on random forums were hilarious, I looked forward to reading and posting as it was genuine and great.
Reddit took over most of this, and it was okay for a time. I still love HN for the stories and the insightful and unique comments like the one you left.
Reddit took over most of this, and it was okay for a time. I still love HN for the stories and the insightful and unique comments like the one you left.
I so miss these 2000-era forums, I ran one myself once upon a time.
I think that instant messaging apps have token over those. Nowadays it's more usual to create a private Slack workspace (or a Mastodon server) instead of a forum, but sadly this takes away many of the more thoughtful, longer posts that you'd typically find in such forums.
I think that instant messaging apps have token over those. Nowadays it's more usual to create a private Slack workspace (or a Mastodon server) instead of a forum, but sadly this takes away many of the more thoughtful, longer posts that you'd typically find in such forums.
I wasn’t expecting to hear any new _why mythology after all this time! Thank you, this is amazing
A beautifully written story that neatly complements _why. Thank you very much.
If anyone is interested in the links that return 404, here's the current location of the projects. Some are still maintained:
• bloopsaphone: https://github.com/localhost/bloopsaphone
• hacketyhack: https://github.com/hacketyhack/hacketyhack
• markaby: https://github.com/markaby/markaby
• metaid: https://github.com/whymirror/metaid
• chirrup: https://github.com/whymirror/chirrup
• skistrap: https://github.com/whymirror/skistrap
• fakeplus: https://github.com/sspencer/fakeplus
• processor: https://github.com/whymirror/processor
• rb_parse_args: https://github.com/whymirror/rb_parse_args
• dns-zone: I don't think this one had a public release
• dotfiles: http://web.archive.org/web/20090328140045/dotfiles.org/~_why
• bloopsaphone: https://github.com/localhost/bloopsaphone
• hacketyhack: https://github.com/hacketyhack/hacketyhack
• markaby: https://github.com/markaby/markaby
• metaid: https://github.com/whymirror/metaid
• chirrup: https://github.com/whymirror/chirrup
• skistrap: https://github.com/whymirror/skistrap
• fakeplus: https://github.com/sspencer/fakeplus
• processor: https://github.com/whymirror/processor
• rb_parse_args: https://github.com/whymirror/rb_parse_args
• dns-zone: I don't think this one had a public release
• dotfiles: http://web.archive.org/web/20090328140045/dotfiles.org/~_why
Thanks for this. I was confused why a page of 404s was staying on the front page for so long, as I've never heard of _why, but I just went down the rabbit hole for a bit and I'm very intrigued now.
One past thread and a bit:
_why's Estate - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1004592 - Dec 2009 (58 comments)
_why's Estate - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16849754 - April 2018 (1 comment)
_why's Estate - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1004592 - Dec 2009 (58 comments)
_why's Estate - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16849754 - April 2018 (1 comment)
Few developers in my career have stuck with me the way _why did. I hope he is doing well, wherever he is.
The favstar.fm link is dead. Not a surprise to me, having known favstar has been down for years. Well, actually, there is an element of surprise: that there's still a link to it, so that casts some doubt over how well maintained these links are to me.
Quil[0] repo has either a homage to _why, or _why has contributed the intro.
[0]: https://github.com/quil/quil
[0]: https://github.com/quil/quil
didn't they get doxxed at some point? I don't think they're actually dead. this is kind of crossing a line (i'm not an expert so I can't say exactly what line is being crossed, but I don't think it's fair to the person who originally created this work).
edit: yep, wikipedia lists his name. I think "he just wants to be left alone" is a fair statement to make.
edit: yep, wikipedia lists his name. I think "he just wants to be left alone" is a fair statement to make.
His real name was revealed, and at that point he deleted his whole Web presence.
He was later tracked by a journalist who revealed quite a bit of additional personal info about him and his family, in a disparaging article (he "wasn’t a great coder"). She ended up finding his current employer and one of his colleagues told her to leave him alone, that’s where the Wikipedia line comes from.
He "wasn’t a great coder" because people had a hard time making sense of his abandoned repos which were all personal projects, underdocumented for collaboration purposes (since none was intended), but the breadth and quality of his output speaks for itself though...
Selected examples:
- a cross-platform (Cairo/Win32/Cocoa) GUI toolkit for ruby
- a chiptune synth
- a rails-like Web framework golfed down to 4kb
- a markup generation API not unlike JSX, but working an an embedded DSL in plain ruby (at a time where libs with similar goals had heavy OO APIs full of method calls, not unlike the browser DOM API)
The list goes on, as per the article linked.
All of these were wonderfully documented for users, and were often breaking ground from a code ergonomie standpoint.
He was later tracked by a journalist who revealed quite a bit of additional personal info about him and his family, in a disparaging article (he "wasn’t a great coder"). She ended up finding his current employer and one of his colleagues told her to leave him alone, that’s where the Wikipedia line comes from.
He "wasn’t a great coder" because people had a hard time making sense of his abandoned repos which were all personal projects, underdocumented for collaboration purposes (since none was intended), but the breadth and quality of his output speaks for itself though...
Selected examples:
- a cross-platform (Cairo/Win32/Cocoa) GUI toolkit for ruby
- a chiptune synth
- a rails-like Web framework golfed down to 4kb
- a markup generation API not unlike JSX, but working an an embedded DSL in plain ruby (at a time where libs with similar goals had heavy OO APIs full of method calls, not unlike the browser DOM API)
The list goes on, as per the article linked.
All of these were wonderfully documented for users, and were often breaking ground from a code ergonomie standpoint.
> He was later tracked by a journalist who revealed quite a bit of additional personal info about him and his family, in a disparaging article (he "wasn’t a great coder"). She ended up finding his current employer and one of his colleagues told her to leave him alone, that’s where the Wikipedia line comes from.
Having been trained and worked as a journalist, I nonetheless always wonder what's the purpose of revelations like this. He wasn't a public figure, his anonymity didn't cause the society (nor the community of Ruby programmers?) any harm. Seems like there was actually no real public interest to justify publishing those details about his persona.
EDIT: Also interesting: excerpts from _why's literary mashup "Closure" where he describes the kafkaesque motives behind his decisions: https://kev.town/2013/04/30/why-did-why-the-lucky-stiff-quit...
Having been trained and worked as a journalist, I nonetheless always wonder what's the purpose of revelations like this. He wasn't a public figure, his anonymity didn't cause the society (nor the community of Ruby programmers?) any harm. Seems like there was actually no real public interest to justify publishing those details about his persona.
EDIT: Also interesting: excerpts from _why's literary mashup "Closure" where he describes the kafkaesque motives behind his decisions: https://kev.town/2013/04/30/why-did-why-the-lucky-stiff-quit...
AFAICT she was just pushing her own career by doing a high profile piece.
I challenged her on Twitter and asked her to remove the piece. She replied that he was famous and thus fair game.
I challenged her on Twitter and asked her to remove the piece. She replied that he was famous and thus fair game.
_why was no more famous than someone who writes for a newspaper under her own name. For a journalist to advocate privacy violation and do so practice …sounds like she is creating a world she would not feel safe to live in.
Definitely.
_why, expecting to remain anonymous, had also shared personal info about his family intermingled in the rest of his fiction prose. This may be why he vanished when his real identity was leaked.
I thought at the time that these accounts were fictional too, but I learned they weren't when the journalist revealed it, not understanding she had crossed further boundaries.
_why, expecting to remain anonymous, had also shared personal info about his family intermingled in the rest of his fiction prose. This may be why he vanished when his real identity was leaked.
I thought at the time that these accounts were fictional too, but I learned they weren't when the journalist revealed it, not understanding she had crossed further boundaries.
They committed identity suicide. For all intents and purposes _why is dead, regardless of the state of the human who used to operate that identity.
I'm uncomfortable with this sort of confounding a character with the person behind it. If an author says they're not writing any more books about X, that doesn't mean that suicide (or murder) has taken place. It just means we won't see anything more from that author using that character unless they change their mind.
My concern is for the person behind it. I hope they're well and are doing something they find more satisfying and less stressful!
My concern is for the person behind it. I hope they're well and are doing something they find more satisfying and less stressful!
I'm not sure how I feel about the suicide metaphor, but what _why did what more than just saying he's not going to write more books about X. He actively worked to tear down the character and creations he built, rather than simply opting not to make more. He put enough effort into it that I'm not sure how I feel about this stuff still being hosted, I mean I know it's legal and all, but given his actions I'm not at all sure it aligns with his wishes.
It really does feel like he tried to kill "something".
It really does feel like he tried to kill "something".
I like to think he addressed this when he reappeared a few years later:
"Now I want to make it perfectly clear that these papers and all my other works in life belong to the general public. In fact, I also would like to turn myself over to all of you as well. This was actually done several years ago, but in an embarrassingly disorganized manner." - https://github.com/steveklabnik/CLOSURE/blob/master/PDF/DISC...
"Now I want to make it perfectly clear that these papers and all my other works in life belong to the general public. In fact, I also would like to turn myself over to all of you as well. This was actually done several years ago, but in an embarrassingly disorganized manner." - https://github.com/steveklabnik/CLOSURE/blob/master/PDF/DISC...
Great work should be preserved even if the author wants it gone. I feel quite strongly about this.
What about the right to be forgotten?
Isn't that usually about personal information rather than the a right to withdraw already released work? Doesn't seem a close fit to this situation.
It's never been particularly practicable, nor frankly even a good idea to design around implementing.
That's a modern pseudo-juridical invention that, tbh, I disagree with. The baseline should be that actions have consequences, and then you exclude certain specific areas (underage, exploited, etc).
That's fine if the consequences are reasonable, but they are often not. The mob doesn't do proportionate responses. Those who fear the mob cannot be relied on to stand against it. The "right to be forgotten" aims to strike a balance between justified consequences and the modern-day Scarlet letter the web attaches to any percieved wrong-doer.
And it really misses the target. In practice, the main users of that "right" are seriously-bad guys - from pedophiles to serial fraudsters.
It really should become a "right to be forgiven", with penalties for discrimination like we have for race and religion. This would also help with things like registers of convicted felons, which in practice are more disproportionately harmful than a few items in google cache.
It really should become a "right to be forgiven", with penalties for discrimination like we have for race and religion. This would also help with things like registers of convicted felons, which in practice are more disproportionately harmful than a few items in google cache.
> the main users of that "right" are seriously-bad guys
Source?
I recently read that it’s used a lot by young people wanting to remove embarrassing they or others added in their younger days. I’ve no idea to what extent either of you is right.
Source?
I recently read that it’s used a lot by young people wanting to remove embarrassing they or others added in their younger days. I’ve no idea to what extent either of you is right.
Every time I try to google local well-known fraudsters in the UK, where even the news article itself mentions previous well-reported scandals, all searches with the name of the guy will only return the google message about records having been hidden because of that. It's just insane. It's like walking into a library, pulling up a newspaper collection from 2001, and when you reach a certain day, all pages are censored or ripped out. How is that not utterly dystopic...?
I agree that youth should be a special case, but in the general term it's just a Bad Idea imho. It's the actual Memory Hole, and not even in ironic terms.
I agree that youth should be a special case, but in the general term it's just a Bad Idea imho. It's the actual Memory Hole, and not even in ironic terms.
You're absolutely right to see a problem here, but the opposite is also true. Like with so many things now, the negative impact of some actions was mitigated in the past by the high cost (or effort) required to perform that action. It was still possible, but unfeasible in practice for all but the most committed. When the cost is reduced, suddenly the mitigation is no longer there, and thus the negative impacts become a lot more prevalent.
Does right to be forgotten apply to public figures? I thought it only applied to people who aren't famous.
Doesn't exist in America and hopefully it never will
The "right to be forgotten" is an appallingly bad idea. It cannot survive the basic liberal rights that underpin peaceful coexistence.
Such a concept is tantamount to mind policing. I’m unsure how it is anything less than Orwellian.
The "right to be forgotten" relates to personal data on a living person, not works of literature, unless, I suppose, it's biographical literature about people who are still alive.
this isn't your intellectual property to preserve.
IP rights are granted by society to encourage creation to enrich the commons in the first place. If you seek to prevent published work from eventually entering the commons you're not holding up your end of the bargain.
Franz Kafka asked his friend Max Brod in a written testament to destroy his entire work after his death. Max Brod didn't obey. Do you think he was wrong?
Huh? Of course he was wrong!
Oh? Why? Kafka wasn't harmed. He was dead.
Why are you so sure? What was more important: respecting Kafka's personal wish or making sure that future generations can read “the trial“? I'm not claiming I have a definite answer, btw.
I think he was both. He did wrong by Kafka because he violated Kafka's trust, but he did right by the public by refusing to destroy that which should and would eventually belong to the commons.
Yes.
Terry Pratchett asked Neil Gaiman to destroy his unpublished works after his death. Gaiman obliged. Do you think he was wrong?
I'm no fan of IP, and we all know it's a boondoggle to take something that's public and try to erase every last instance of it (as _why seemed to want to do), but the prerogative that people do have is whether or not to publish something in the first place. Privacy is a human right, and that includes the freedom not to have your private thoughts published against your will.
I'm no fan of IP, and we all know it's a boondoggle to take something that's public and try to erase every last instance of it (as _why seemed to want to do), but the prerogative that people do have is whether or not to publish something in the first place. Privacy is a human right, and that includes the freedom not to have your private thoughts published against your will.
> Terry Pratchett asked Neil Gaiman to destroy his unpublished works after his death. Gaiman obliged. Do you think he was wrong?
The Kafka and Pratchet requests aren't equivalent.
In general I'd say that the choices by the executors in both cases were justifiable.
The Kafka and Pratchet requests aren't equivalent.
In general I'd say that the choices by the executors in both cases were justifiable.
The right thing to do is think about what’s best both for your friend, and for society in general. This can lead to different decisions in different situations, yet both being “right”.
I agree and I would propose that the concept of intellectual "property" is the thing that needs to be modified here.
As a a weasel word, I hear it mentioned whenever why's writing comes up the absolute sea-change it caused in the types of writing that followed it. I know it absolutely changed the content that was coming out even if it was just part of the zeitgeist. Are there any other canonical example of the why style? A few that come to mind:
• Learn You A Haskell for Great Good
• Land o Lisp
• Clojure Brave and True
I don't find myself with the time to luxuriate in this type of writing much any more and typically gravitate towards more terse material. However, I credit this style towards developing an ineffable sort intuition and making autodidact approaches a bit easier (at least for myself).
• Learn You A Haskell for Great Good
• Land o Lisp
• Clojure Brave and True
I don't find myself with the time to luxuriate in this type of writing much any more and typically gravitate towards more terse material. However, I credit this style towards developing an ineffable sort intuition and making autodidact approaches a bit easier (at least for myself).
> I don't find myself with the time to luxuriate in this type of writing much any more and typically gravitate towards more terse material.
Same.
Unpopular opinion, but I really can't stand _why and his imitators' style.
I would have started using ruby a bit earlier were it not for the cute "zine" style that was so popular with that community in the mid aughts.
Same.
Unpopular opinion, but I really can't stand _why and his imitators' style.
I would have started using ruby a bit earlier were it not for the cute "zine" style that was so popular with that community in the mid aughts.
I wholeheartedly agree. It's not hating on something to prefer a different style. I can see the appeal, for example, to kids or bohemian artists.
Computer science and engineering doesn't have to be dull. But it can be fun and engaging without being trite and forced. I think XKCD has a better vibe.
Computer science and engineering doesn't have to be dull. But it can be fun and engaging without being trite and forced. I think XKCD has a better vibe.
It's not hating on something to prefer a different style, sure. It _might_ be hating on something, though, to choose the words "trite" and "forced" to describe it, howsoever you feel justified in using then.
Agreed. Both “trite” and “forced” imply an unjustified distrust of the author’s motives.
Land of Lisp has cartoons and some whimsy, but I don't think of it as especially why-pilled, personally. (Haven't read the other two.) I mean, Starting FORTH had cartoons and whimsy too in the 1980s.
Don't forget Beagle Bros for the Apple ][ era.
I never had an Apple of my own, alas. The TI-99/4a had less personality.
Oh, so that’s where LYAH came from! I read it when I was first learning Haskell, and I recall being somewhat puzzled by the style. More recently, I know someone who stopped reading it in large part because of the style — it seems to have gone out of vogue now.
You could add at least Learn You Some Erlang for great good and Realm of Racket to your list.
From Python land, Mark Pilgrim had a similar hiatus from the internet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pilgrim
The main difference, though, is that Pilgrim wasn't an assumed identity. I think in his case, he just got tired of being a spokesman for Python and wanted to get his privacy back.
Finally, an act of homage for that wonderful mind.
Is this website legal to visit in Missouri?
I absolutely loved _why’s work. It was hugely influential and wonderful.
Having said that, when they committed identity suicide they deleted everything they could. Preserving their work for archival purposes seems valuable, but I feel weird about operating a “museum” or “estate” dedicated to showing people where to read the stuff that _why tried to delete.
Having said that, when they committed identity suicide they deleted everything they could. Preserving their work for archival purposes seems valuable, but I feel weird about operating a “museum” or “estate” dedicated to showing people where to read the stuff that _why tried to delete.
Franz Kafka famously asked his friend Max Brod to burn all his unpublished manuscripts after Kafka's death. Brod did not honor this request, which is why we can now read "The Trial" and "The Castle".
So yeah. Preserving someone's work against their wishes is probably a faux pas - thankfully, someone else committed it, and you, me, and humanity at large can just enjoy the results.
So yeah. Preserving someone's work against their wishes is probably a faux pas - thankfully, someone else committed it, and you, me, and humanity at large can just enjoy the results.
I’m not sure if you know this or not, but when _why briefly came back for one more work, this example is one he engaged with directly.
This is mentioned in this article from a couple weeks ago: https://github.com/readme/featured/why-the-lucky-stiff
EDIT: Ooops, I had posted the title instead of the URL.
EDIT: Ooops, I had posted the title instead of the URL.
[deleted]
Hmm, seems like it’s more in character to say that he tried to delete it, wondering how much would surface later anyway.
On the one hand, I think almost everything _why touched was beautifully crafted. On the other hand, I am tired of twee programming language tutorials about woodland animals written by people with far less talent. I guess I am getting old.
The tragedy of learning a new programming language as an experienced software engineer is having to start from complete basics tutorials about counting apples in a basket and metaphors to teach what a variable is.
One day I'll finally learn Ruby, once I manage to find a learning resource which isn't aimed at complete newbies and goes in depth into the metaprogramming and intricacies of the language.
One day I'll finally learn Ruby, once I manage to find a learning resource which isn't aimed at complete newbies and goes in depth into the metaprogramming and intricacies of the language.
I'm not sure if you're joking or just not familiar with _why, but his book on Ruby is probably his most famous writing:
http://www.rubyinside.com/media/poignant-guide.pdf
or
http://poignant.guide/
It's an incredible work.
Ruby is the spiritual successor to Perl, and the niche it filled was to be the "beautiful" programming language. If you don't appreciate _why's guide and the idea of code as magical incantations, you're not going to enjoy your Ruby experience. I don't think there's many rubyists that didn't appreciate _why.
With something as weird as Ruby, where there's so many ways to do everything, you're going to want to start with beginner's mind anyway.
http://www.rubyinside.com/media/poignant-guide.pdf
or
http://poignant.guide/
It's an incredible work.
Ruby is the spiritual successor to Perl, and the niche it filled was to be the "beautiful" programming language. If you don't appreciate _why's guide and the idea of code as magical incantations, you're not going to enjoy your Ruby experience. I don't think there's many rubyists that didn't appreciate _why.
With something as weird as Ruby, where there's so many ways to do everything, you're going to want to start with beginner's mind anyway.
> I'm not sure if you're joking or just not familiar with _why
I am familiar with _why and I agree with parent, I've read the Poignant Guide as a relatively experienced programmer (I had 2-3 years of experience back then), 90% of the guide was useless to me. Unless you are a complete beginner, you don't need bacon or water pipe analogies to understand basic concepts like variables or functions.
I am familiar with _why and I agree with parent, I've read the Poignant Guide as a relatively experienced programmer (I had 2-3 years of experience back then), 90% of the guide was useless to me. Unless you are a complete beginner, you don't need bacon or water pipe analogies to understand basic concepts like variables or functions.
I think you’ve just explained to me why I am not a good fit for ruby. I should leave it to those who can do justice to the spirit of the language.
Other than that metaprogramming ruby book liked in another comment... reading "eloquent ruby" was an absolute treat. it's teaching you all the idiomatic stuff from ruby and not a bunch of filler. easily one of the best ruby books ever written... hell maybe even one of the best programming books. It also dips into metaprogramming and all the other stuff ruby is known for.
> hell maybe even one of the best programming books
My thoughts exactly. I loved it so much I emailed the author and - embarrassingly - told him he was the Mark Twain of programming books! He replied and was also very embarrassed by the comparison.
Or maybe that was for his other book, Design Patterns in Ruby, I don't remember as I try hard to forget the details of embarrassing moments. I'm still waiting for a Lacuna-like company to arise and help me forget them all…
Still, either book is well worth a read, both are top of my recommendations. If he (Russ Olsen) ever writes one about Haskell then perhaps it'll finally go mainstream :)
My thoughts exactly. I loved it so much I emailed the author and - embarrassingly - told him he was the Mark Twain of programming books! He replied and was also very embarrassed by the comparison.
Or maybe that was for his other book, Design Patterns in Ruby, I don't remember as I try hard to forget the details of embarrassing moments. I'm still waiting for a Lacuna-like company to arise and help me forget them all…
Still, either book is well worth a read, both are top of my recommendations. If he (Russ Olsen) ever writes one about Haskell then perhaps it'll finally go mainstream :)
interestingly enough it looks like he wrote a book on clojure so maybe that will get a lisp more traction.
A tragedy indeed. "A Tour of C++" by Stroustrup is an excellent counterexample. He explains the basics in Chapter 1, and then goes on to explain more advanced stuff all while avoiding the uncommon or ugly parts of the language.
When learning a new language I often search for its "A Tour of C++" or "Effective Java" equivalent, but they're not common.
The "In a Nutshell" series are a passable substitute.
When learning a new language I often search for its "A Tour of C++" or "Effective Java" equivalent, but they're not common.
The "In a Nutshell" series are a passable substitute.
you could probably pick it up pretty easily just through rubykoans.
http://www.rubykoans.com/
http://www.rubykoans.com/
When I learned Python (coming from a succession of other languages), I didn't bother with such tutorials, but just started hacking away. Meanwhile, I read a bunch of articles, not on how to write in Python, but on techniques for writing good Python code. I already knew enough about programming that I wasn't baffled by those articles (could always look things up), and they made the transition pretty easy.
Now, for a language that was profoundly different (like going from BASIC to Haskell), I'd probably look for something more basic. ;)
Now, for a language that was profoundly different (like going from BASIC to Haskell), I'd probably look for something more basic. ;)
You might try Metaprogramming Ruby 2 by Paolo Perrotta[1] (the link has bits you can read). I haven't read number 2, just number 1, but I'd expect it's pretty much the same. It's written with the conceit of an experienced programmer taking a new hire through the language, so it may be right for you.
[1] https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/metaprogramming-ruby-2/...
[1] https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/metaprogramming-ruby-2/...
I like to start with live coding exercises, think Exercism[0] or Codewars[1], to get a good sense of the syntax and utilities and then do an actual project with real documentation on the side.
Tutorials just don't cut it for me, they never have. It's just a grueling format and it does nothing but put me off the tech I'm looking at.
[0]: https://exercism.org
[1]: https://www.codewars.com
Tutorials just don't cut it for me, they never have. It's just a grueling format and it does nothing but put me off the tech I'm looking at.
[0]: https://exercism.org
[1]: https://www.codewars.com
I actually had to learn Ruby somewhat recently, although it was only for the purpose of fixing something and not an extensive development; and for that purpose I went directly to the official documentation:
https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/
Personally, I think something similar to K&R style would be my preferred learning material; short and concise but clear and easy to understand.
https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/
Personally, I think something similar to K&R style would be my preferred learning material; short and concise but clear and easy to understand.
Might I recommend reading through the part of the Ruby standard library that is written in Ruby?
This is often the best way to become quickly acquainted with a new language, as the code you'll encounter will be sophisticated and idiomatic. It will also be implementing basics of the API, which are relatively consistent across languages.
This is often the best way to become quickly acquainted with a new language, as the code you'll encounter will be sophisticated and idiomatic. It will also be implementing basics of the API, which are relatively consistent across languages.
It’s been a while, but imho “Metaprogramming Ruby” is what you want to read.
this is a really great book on metaprogramming in Ruby
https://github.com/dazhizhang/ruby-rails/blob/master/Metapro...
https://github.com/dazhizhang/ruby-rails/blob/master/Metapro...
Is it free to be shared like that?
_why's style is like Wes Anderson: great, but divisive; and intolerably awful when anyone with less than excellent taste & skill tries to imitate it.
Where is _why now?
It really feels like a friend has left.
He contributed to Ruby/Rails, he developed a weird graphics program I think called shooes, which I actually wrote a app with.
Mostly I remember him taking the time to help me search a directory in Ruby.
Thanks.
He disbanded his pseudonym and works under his real name. But not with the Ruby community anymore, in completely different IT fields.
Half of the links are dead? Including the 'whymirror'.
FYI the following links 404:
bloopsaphone
hacketyhack
markaby
metaid
chirrup
skistrap
fakeplus
processor
rb_parse_args
The last two seem to not load at all, but it might be a problem with their sites:
rubyforge.org/projects/dns-zone
dotfiles.org/~_why
bloopsaphone
hacketyhack
markaby
metaid
chirrup
skistrap
fakeplus
processor
rb_parse_args
The last two seem to not load at all, but it might be a problem with their sites:
rubyforge.org/projects/dns-zone
dotfiles.org/~_why
A lot 404's in there...
Anyone else think _why got rich off from crypto and decided to retire to an island somewhere?
The timing is off - why's internet exodus was about a decade too early for that to be the case. His offline identity has also been pretty thoroughly leaked by now also and he has continued to work as a pretty standard dev since. His pseudonymous activities were never very revenue generating anyway for money to spark a retirement.
Im not into ruby and wasn’t familiar with _why until this post. From others’ comments, it sounds like he’s largely credited with the birth of the “fun” programming language tutorial. How horrible. Even as an absolute beginner, I always found those style of tutorials to be massive time wasters and tone-deaf. Your audience’s primary goal is to learn the language. Sure they might be more engaged if it has lighthearted quips here and there, but they quickly become way too dominant in most tutorials of this style and are only good for people that have a lot of free time to spend reading bad puns or hyper-contrived examples.[1]
I also skimmed his pdfs, which legitimately seem like a great piece of postmodern literature. In my hasty estimation, _why should have been focusing on literary pursuits from the start, so all in all, not a bad outcome.
I don’t have any opinion on his software for precisely the sort of reasons that seem to have driven him away from the profession of programmer. I have no need to know about ruby, and from a quick look all the tools are irrelevant to me. Programming (specifically of the OSS variety) is thankless and yes all the glories it tempts one with are dust. This is why people taking pride in being programmers has always confused me. Computer scientists, sure. Domain experts, sure. System designer, sure. But programmer? It’s essentially an overpaid but (currently) high demand job that’s not too hard about 90% of the time and is completely unglamorous. I never understood the appeal. If you code, you should only do it (like pretty much anything) because the activity itself stirs a sort of joy in you or because there’s some ulterior utility (money, you need the tool you're writing, etc.) in doing it.
[1] for a book that actually balances this style well, I’d suggest Deep C Secrets—part of the reason why it works is because much of the “fun” content is in asides and secondary to the main text, something a lot of other language tutorial writers have not figured out how to accomplish.
I also skimmed his pdfs, which legitimately seem like a great piece of postmodern literature. In my hasty estimation, _why should have been focusing on literary pursuits from the start, so all in all, not a bad outcome.
I don’t have any opinion on his software for precisely the sort of reasons that seem to have driven him away from the profession of programmer. I have no need to know about ruby, and from a quick look all the tools are irrelevant to me. Programming (specifically of the OSS variety) is thankless and yes all the glories it tempts one with are dust. This is why people taking pride in being programmers has always confused me. Computer scientists, sure. Domain experts, sure. System designer, sure. But programmer? It’s essentially an overpaid but (currently) high demand job that’s not too hard about 90% of the time and is completely unglamorous. I never understood the appeal. If you code, you should only do it (like pretty much anything) because the activity itself stirs a sort of joy in you or because there’s some ulterior utility (money, you need the tool you're writing, etc.) in doing it.
[1] for a book that actually balances this style well, I’d suggest Deep C Secrets—part of the reason why it works is because much of the “fun” content is in asides and secondary to the main text, something a lot of other language tutorial writers have not figured out how to accomplish.
> This is why people taking pride in being programmers has always confused me.
What exactly does “taking pride in being programmers” means to you? I once read an article that was suggesting that one should call themselves a software developer and not a programmer. Maybe you mean it in that sense?
I take pride in being a programmer, but that is not a well defined statement and perhaps I mean something else by it than what you mean.
There is the machine and it is really really complicated. It can do a lot of things, but sometimes what it can do is not exactly what is needed. Then the users either put in a lot of elbow-grease to get what they want done, or worse they declare that it is impossible to achieve it and what is needed doesn’t get done. Then a programmer goes by and notices this. They see that something is done inefficiently, with a lot of pain to the users and the business, and the programmer says: “You know it doesn’t have to be this way. We can make the machine do the right thing for us. After all we are the masters of the machine, it should serve us, not the other way around.” And the users very often can’t believe this. They don’t think this way. They very often bug out their eyes and state that it cannot be done, because there is no time, or budget, or it is just simply impossible. And then the programmer sits down works a bit (10 minutes, or a week, or a month, depending on the complexity and the value of the problem) and shows them that it was not impossible. The machine didn’t serve us before and now it does. This is what it means to me to be a programer. You go around, find problems you can solve for people and you solve them.
Maybe you are a terrible hack who copy-pastes together scripts from stackoverflow until they kinda work, maybe you are a real engineer who can build elegant and well tested reliable solutions to hard problems. If you can make the computer work for you and master it you are a programmer in my book and I think you should feel proud of it.
What exactly does “taking pride in being programmers” means to you? I once read an article that was suggesting that one should call themselves a software developer and not a programmer. Maybe you mean it in that sense?
I take pride in being a programmer, but that is not a well defined statement and perhaps I mean something else by it than what you mean.
There is the machine and it is really really complicated. It can do a lot of things, but sometimes what it can do is not exactly what is needed. Then the users either put in a lot of elbow-grease to get what they want done, or worse they declare that it is impossible to achieve it and what is needed doesn’t get done. Then a programmer goes by and notices this. They see that something is done inefficiently, with a lot of pain to the users and the business, and the programmer says: “You know it doesn’t have to be this way. We can make the machine do the right thing for us. After all we are the masters of the machine, it should serve us, not the other way around.” And the users very often can’t believe this. They don’t think this way. They very often bug out their eyes and state that it cannot be done, because there is no time, or budget, or it is just simply impossible. And then the programmer sits down works a bit (10 minutes, or a week, or a month, depending on the complexity and the value of the problem) and shows them that it was not impossible. The machine didn’t serve us before and now it does. This is what it means to me to be a programer. You go around, find problems you can solve for people and you solve them.
Maybe you are a terrible hack who copy-pastes together scripts from stackoverflow until they kinda work, maybe you are a real engineer who can build elegant and well tested reliable solutions to hard problems. If you can make the computer work for you and master it you are a programmer in my book and I think you should feel proud of it.
My first post was poorly written. I didn't mean to imply that taking pride in a job well done was bad. I don't think it is. I think programmers have plenty of reason to be happy when they do good work[1]--what I think is foolish is having visions of grandeur when it comes to programming, which in my opinion is what _why seemed to have based on his reasoning for quitting. I could be way off mark, but that's my take.
I mentioned this in another comment, but I think it also has to do with a confusion of categories. _why seemed to want recognition akin to that received by, e.g. Thomas Bernhard, Kafka, for something like shoes or his other software/libraries or general contributions to computing. But the issue is these things will always be utilities for specialists, and any aesthetic properties they have (elegant design, expression, etc.) are secondary to their functioning and they'll always be relegated to the dusty realm of specialists since the code is not the product--the software is. One can write code to create an aesthetic object that is enjoyed and revered by the masses, but I have a hard time envisioning a future in which the masses will ever enjoy and revere code or engineering for its own sake.
Pride was the wrong word to use and one I lazily reached for. After reading your comment, you've helped me realize that what I advise against is misapplication of expectations to different categories of things. _why seemed to want an aesthetic reception and legacy on a general, popular scale for work that is ultimately only a utility to the vast majority of the population and indeed, not even accessible to the population, and even if it were, I don't think many people would admire programming libs for fun--such a hobby will remain the lot of only enthusiasts. There is no pop coding like there is pop music.
[1]: Though I'd also argue that much of what you state taking pride in is not programming--which is just expressing ideas in programming languages--what you are talking about is engineering/design, which can be done perfectly well and separately from the programming part. we just happen to solve a lot of problems with computers these days so we need to express solutions for computers to consume and we tend to blend those responsibilities (we'll one day get to a point where the computers do most of the programming and we just design https://github.com/nadia-polikarpova/synquid)
I mentioned this in another comment, but I think it also has to do with a confusion of categories. _why seemed to want recognition akin to that received by, e.g. Thomas Bernhard, Kafka, for something like shoes or his other software/libraries or general contributions to computing. But the issue is these things will always be utilities for specialists, and any aesthetic properties they have (elegant design, expression, etc.) are secondary to their functioning and they'll always be relegated to the dusty realm of specialists since the code is not the product--the software is. One can write code to create an aesthetic object that is enjoyed and revered by the masses, but I have a hard time envisioning a future in which the masses will ever enjoy and revere code or engineering for its own sake.
Pride was the wrong word to use and one I lazily reached for. After reading your comment, you've helped me realize that what I advise against is misapplication of expectations to different categories of things. _why seemed to want an aesthetic reception and legacy on a general, popular scale for work that is ultimately only a utility to the vast majority of the population and indeed, not even accessible to the population, and even if it were, I don't think many people would admire programming libs for fun--such a hobby will remain the lot of only enthusiasts. There is no pop coding like there is pop music.
[1]: Though I'd also argue that much of what you state taking pride in is not programming--which is just expressing ideas in programming languages--what you are talking about is engineering/design, which can be done perfectly well and separately from the programming part. we just happen to solve a lot of problems with computers these days so we need to express solutions for computers to consume and we tend to blend those responsibilities (we'll one day get to a point where the computers do most of the programming and we just design https://github.com/nadia-polikarpova/synquid)
I agree on the first half but not the second. Most things a carpenter builds aren't going to last a century, but I wouldn't find it strange at all for him to take pride in them.
That's fair. I have no problem with someone taking pride in their work, what I take issue with is the sort of level of pride someone like _why seemed to expect to garner.
A local furniture maker will certainly take pride in a piece he's built, and his customer will rightly enjoy it. There's nothing wrong with this, let's call it "small-scale pride" or "contentment". Part of the motivation for such work is, beyond selling the furniture, probably some amount of joy in the craft itself--I think you'll find this joy pairs often with "small-scale pride" or contentment.
If you read _why's motivations for disappearing, however, his desires seem of a grander order. He writes about wanting to produce something that really lasts, and theres undercurrents of these products needing to be recognized widely and celebrated, even beyond the creator's lifetime. This is the sort of pride I meant in my first comment. I think it's foolish to chase this sort of highly external motivation and desire, particularly in the realm of programming, (it'd be similar, say, to wanting to acquire renown as a legendary accountant).
What I'm getting at is a sort of confusion between art and utility. _why seemed to want an artist's glory for what will always be a utility.
Sure, when we are programming and get into a "flow" state, we may feel transcendent, and enthusiasts may be able to have a deep appreciation for the work of others, but the general public, or mankind as a whole will never appreciate the products of programming (software) in the same way they do art. Furthermore, the part of the discipline that one could argue has some amount of aesthetics to it--writing "beautiful" source code (elegantly expressing in a language)--is not even a primary part of the end result (which is the software itself)[1], so it has even less of a chance of really being appreciated by anyone beyond specialists. I think this confusion, this ambition for glory, is what's foolish. Quite frankly it's a distraction in any field and usually a sign that you're pursuing something for the wrong reasons. I have no problem with someone taking pride in good work--it's this sort of ambition for a legacy in software that I find silly. Like anything else it's possible, but I feel it's a particularly hard thing to realize in the world of software--of course, it does happen, but even the majority of legends in computing that reach beyond the sphere of computing (which is partly what _why seemed to want on my reading) (e.g. Gates, Jobs, Stallman (even this is a stretch)--many computer scientists where the "general public" recognition factor quickly drops off) primarily are not known for programming.
[1]: Compare it with reading. One reads a book, in which the material of the work (the words) contribute directly to the aesthetic experiences of the work and which the reader directly engages with on consumption of the work. The aesthetic experience of the program is totally divorced from the consumption of the software, which of course may have its own, separate aesthetic dimension.
A local furniture maker will certainly take pride in a piece he's built, and his customer will rightly enjoy it. There's nothing wrong with this, let's call it "small-scale pride" or "contentment". Part of the motivation for such work is, beyond selling the furniture, probably some amount of joy in the craft itself--I think you'll find this joy pairs often with "small-scale pride" or contentment.
If you read _why's motivations for disappearing, however, his desires seem of a grander order. He writes about wanting to produce something that really lasts, and theres undercurrents of these products needing to be recognized widely and celebrated, even beyond the creator's lifetime. This is the sort of pride I meant in my first comment. I think it's foolish to chase this sort of highly external motivation and desire, particularly in the realm of programming, (it'd be similar, say, to wanting to acquire renown as a legendary accountant).
What I'm getting at is a sort of confusion between art and utility. _why seemed to want an artist's glory for what will always be a utility.
Sure, when we are programming and get into a "flow" state, we may feel transcendent, and enthusiasts may be able to have a deep appreciation for the work of others, but the general public, or mankind as a whole will never appreciate the products of programming (software) in the same way they do art. Furthermore, the part of the discipline that one could argue has some amount of aesthetics to it--writing "beautiful" source code (elegantly expressing in a language)--is not even a primary part of the end result (which is the software itself)[1], so it has even less of a chance of really being appreciated by anyone beyond specialists. I think this confusion, this ambition for glory, is what's foolish. Quite frankly it's a distraction in any field and usually a sign that you're pursuing something for the wrong reasons. I have no problem with someone taking pride in good work--it's this sort of ambition for a legacy in software that I find silly. Like anything else it's possible, but I feel it's a particularly hard thing to realize in the world of software--of course, it does happen, but even the majority of legends in computing that reach beyond the sphere of computing (which is partly what _why seemed to want on my reading) (e.g. Gates, Jobs, Stallman (even this is a stretch)--many computer scientists where the "general public" recognition factor quickly drops off) primarily are not known for programming.
[1]: Compare it with reading. One reads a book, in which the material of the work (the words) contribute directly to the aesthetic experiences of the work and which the reader directly engages with on consumption of the work. The aesthetic experience of the program is totally divorced from the consumption of the software, which of course may have its own, separate aesthetic dimension.
Well, when one considers the vast array of anonymous session musicians and ghost writers, maybe art isn't so different.
I'd like to second your recommendation of Deep C Secrets. I originally bought it purely for the title pun, but it is actually one of the better programming books I own ( and I have a lot ).
In the early 2000s some of my high school friends started an invite only phpBB server. It functioned as a sort of proto-Facebook to keep in touch with one another as we became dispersed around the world because of college and jobs.
As our personal friend networks grew, the bulletin board grew till there were several hundred members. It remained invite only, and the content—while wonderful and funny—mostly reflected the interests and neuroses of sheltered twenty-something Utahns.
As the site grew we naturally developed a set of norms and rules of etiquette that governed the way things were discussed. New users who blasted in and violated those norms were gently redirected initially, ignored eventually, and banned at worst. But in all, things were pretty staid. Since you had to be invited by an existing user, the type of people that joined were of more or less self-selected tastes and temperaments.
Then a user called `phonequail` joined and began posting bizarre threads. Bizarre relative to the typical discussions of workplace drama, Mormon theology, 24, and indie rock, anyway. As an example, he started a thread in which he GM'd a Belle & Sebastian-based RPG. In another instance he satirized a thread called "Shooting the Breeze", which functioned as a pre-Twitter for short thoughts and observations not worthy of their own thread. He declared it had too many words and too much discussion. Conesequently, he started his own thread "Muting the Breeze", in which users were only allowed to converse using images—except images of baby ultrasounds, which were too violent for polite conversation.
His magnum opus was another series of threads in which he played out a sci-fi RPG he called "Spacelab". Participants traveled around the galaxy, and he gave paragraphs of vivid, hilarious descriptions of strange worlds and aliens. Each post ended with an arbitrary, seemingly meaningless choice, which would ultimately propel the player into another offbeat adventure. E.g., "Do you pick up the calendar on the desk, or relax on your bed with a magazine". Meanwhile other users participated as "fans" of Spacelab imagining it to be a long-running sci-fi universe in the mold of Star Trek, with ego-driven stars, fan conventions, and a children's show spinoff.
I realize that some of this might strike people as an insufferable bit of "Katy t3h PeNgU1N oF d00m"-style forced randomness. And perhaps it would be if it weren't carried out by someone with such a staggering imagination.
Several years later when I was deciding whether I wanted to learn to program, I kept reading about the poignant guide. I decided to check it out. I was struck by how similar the tone and style was to phonequail's. It was uncanny. Finally, when one of the examples of ruby variables was `phone_a_quail`, I had my Keyser Soze moment.
Eventually Facebook, Twitter and increasing responsibilities at our various jobs atomized the board and its participants. Phonequail himself was a divisive figure. Being a far more competent programmer than the guy who initially spun up the phpBB server, he took the board's technical helm. At one point he tried to replace the phpBB with a homegrown bulletin board app he'd written himself. Users voted against it after trying it for a few weeks, and we switched back to phpBB. Phonequail more or less stopped participating.
Anyway, either you played along, looked forward to his posts, and marveled at his imagination, or you proclaimed you didn't 'get' him. I was among the former, and, if nothing else I am still fascinated by how by sheer force of will he got a group of young not-quite-adults who were struggling to be taken seriously to _play_ in a way we hadn't done in years.