Hackers & Painters 112
| Hackers & Painters | |
| author | Paul Graham |
| pages | 271 |
| publisher | O'Reilly Media |
| rating | 8 - May not interest absolutely everyone |
| reviewer | Tony Williams |
| ISBN | 0596006624 |
| summary | Interesting collection of essays, mainly concerned with software |
Literature has a long history of the essayist; since those famous theses on the church door at Wittgenstein a well written and thought provoking essay on a topic has provided power and focus for important discussions. Graham has either learnt or discovered the important points in writing a good essay; brevity, quality writing and thought.
In this volume Graham covers a range of topics, though all are, understandably, centered on computers. Why nerds are unpopular at school, and what this demonstrates about our eduction system; why program in Lisp; the importance of "startups", programming languages and web development are all touched on. At the same time he covers topics less techno-centric such as heretical thinking and speech. wealth creation and unequal income distribution.
I found myself disagreeing with him often while reading the book, though every time I did I found his argument compelling. I agree with Andy Hertzfeld, quoted on the back cover of the book, "He may even make you want to start programming in Lisp." Graham is politically more conservative and right wing than me, he is also a fervent supporter of Lisp, while I'm a C and Perl advocate. It is telling that at no time did I find myself railing at his views, rather I was reading his arguments and giving them meme space. A good sign of a writer that does not indulge in unnecessary or extreme polemic.
Graham also tends to concentrate on a single point in each essay, allowing for both good coverage and a brief essay. Where he covers a larger context, such as high school education in "Why Nerds Are Unpopular" that opens the book, he seems to focus on just one or two good points of discussion.
The title essay is the second in the collection and provides an interesting look at hacking and some lessons we can learn by analogy to the work and life of Rennaissance painters, particularly in how it is done and how it can be funded. The third, "What You Can't Say" is social commentary on heretical thinking. Four, "Good Bad Attitude" is on the benefits of breaking rules, both in life and hacking. Five, "The Other Road Ahead", is an excellent look at web based software and why it offers benefits to both user and developer with Graham examining some lessons he learnt while building ViaWeb. Six, "How To Make Wealth", is a look at becoming wealthy and how a 'startup' might be the best way to do it. The seventh, "Mind The Gap", is an argument that we should not worry so much about 'unequal wealth distribution' and why it might actually be a good thing. From this list, and a look at the table of contents (available as a PDF on the O'Reilly page for the book), you can see that Graham covers a wide spectrum while never straying from topics he knows.
If I was forced to identify a weakness in this book it may well be that Graham does not evince doubt or uncertainty in his arguments, on a few occasions he may admit to a narrow view or knowledge but doubt or uncertainty don't seem to enter his field of vision while he writes. This coupled with a single viewpoint makes the book less than all-encompassing in discussion. However, I must admit that it is almost impossible to be anything more with a single author and Graham may well be more honest than others who pick and choose the alternatives they present.
Most of the essays are available at Graham's website, but frankly I am a fan of dead trees and appreciated that this book could be read on the bus or in bed. If you would prefer something you cna read on the bus then a PDF of the second chapter, "Hackers & Painters" is available from the O'Reilly page linked above.
I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to think about a number of topics important to the culture of our tiny corner of the world, computers and the net, while not ignoring the rest.
You can purchase Hackers & Painters from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
A good trait for writers (Score:5, Insightful)
This is something that we don't see enough of these days. Too often people get stuck in a "because I said so" kind of rut, making claims with little in the way of a solid agument to back them up.
IMO, one of the markings of a well written work is when somebody can say "I may not agree with it, but he made a good argument for his case". Its a sign that the author is generally interested in painting an accurate picture rather than simply throwing a biased view out there for the world to swallow.
Re:A good trait for writers (Score:5, Funny)
Am I the only one who found that quote slightly ironic?
Re:A good trait for writers (Score:1)
Wittgenstein? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wittgenstein? (Score:3, Funny)
He is the very pineapple of politeness... (Score:2)
Caleb
p.s., sed 'Subject s/pineapple/pinnacle/g'
Re:Wittgenstein? (Score:3, Interesting)
Luther's 95 These was hardly an "essay." It was more like a list of discussion topics; an invitation to debate; an attack on church policies.
The first writings actually called essays were written by Michel de Montaigne over 60 years after Luther.
Controversial writing predates Luther by thousands of years. I am sure Moses was considered pretty controversial at the time. There was also plenty of discussion worthy items in the works of great Greek philsophers.
The whole story of the nailing t
philosophy nerd humor (Score:2, Funny)
HELP! This LISP language is a cage! Get me out!
You're confused. (Score:1)
Re:Is this book about JeffK? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is sort of like open source software in a way, as digital art lends itself to being copied and used as wallpapers, fodder for other digital art, and the like. For instance you are free to use my digital pieces for whatever you like as long as it is not commercial. Hmmmm, looks like I need to put up my copyleft tag. Anyways the future of art is the mutability of the medium. Where people will buy 3 or 4 digital photo frames or make your own [audreyhacking.com] out of old computers or laptops.
Re:Is this book about JeffK? (Score:2)
Wittgenstein? (Score:5, Informative)
Being Jewish, I don't claim to have the last word on this subject but wasn't it Wittenberg? Wittgenstein certainly doesn't sound right -- perhaps you're thinking of the philosopher (also Jewish, more or less)?
Anyway, regarding the book: Some of those essays have been linked here. Good for sparking a few hours of argument, but they seem much more suited to a website than to a 200 page bound volume.
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Funny)
A curious slip (Score:1)
One of the points that Wittgenstein brought to light was that many political and philosophical arguments are nothing more than misunderstandings about what various words mean, and then people use them in ways that other people don't agree with, and argument results.
Computer code alleviates this problem, but it does come back in discussions about computer code, strangely enough.
Paul Graham links mentioned above all in one place (Score:5, Informative)
Paul Graham's politics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:1)
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:1)
Just piping up here to be counted: put me down as a religious libertarian. In fact, the way my politics have been going, lately, I think you can start calling me an anarchist.
And, yes, I honestly believe it is wrong to use governmental force (or any force) to compel acceptance of my religion or adherence to its precepts.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2)
Er, right. I'm not sure why you feel the need to convince me of this, which I already believe.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2)
Wait a sec. I don't believe government employees and the military can lay claim to your property, either, because their powers are simply delegated from the people. Since I and the rest of this country do not have the right to lay claim to your property, the government cannot do it. In a democracy, if government employees lay claim to your property, it is because the common people voted it so (directly or indirectly). There is no distinction between government employees and the common people when the go
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:1)
Well, this isn't a democracy, first off. It's a republic. So the will of the people doesn't mean much.
Have you ever read Thucydides [amazon.com]? I ask because it's a great portrait of a pure democracy (especially during times of war and turmoil). The Athenians (Athens was a democracy for most of the war) are idiots who can be swayed by the most idiotic speeches and appeals to the "Greatness of Athens
Allow all religious practices? (Score:1)
Would you allow all of these practices that one religion or another allows?
Smoking marajuana. Taking peyote. Multiple wifes. Not serving in the military. Refusing medical aid to children.
More contentiously:
Slavery, female circumcision, beating ones wife, forced sex against wife's will, beating children, killing witches.
My point is that there needs to be some balance between what religion allows and the broader society's sense of what is right and wrong.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:3, Informative)
The Democrats association with the civil rights movement and forced intgeration created the movement that Nixonites called the "silent majority" and enabled the Republican party to soften its image as the pro-business party and embrace a "traditional values" platform, and leaving us w
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:3, Funny)
AND eat children, we also eat small children. I wanted to make sure that was noted.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:1)
That being said, anyone with 1/2 a grain of sense realises that calling something left/right is an excerise in generalization.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:4, Informative)
Many libertarians, like myself, came to the philosophy from the right side of politics: a belief in strong economic liberty as the best (and only ethical) policy led to a belief in strong social liberty. I personally still identify as "right wing," and "conservative," although the more libertarian I become the more problems I have with those I formerly identified as "my side."
Meanwhile, many libertarians came to the philosophy from the left side of politics, and I presume ESR is probably one of them: a belief in strong social liberty led to a belief in strong economic liberty. I was shocked when I started reading libertarian forums and discovered these people even existed; it seemed so wrong to me that there were people who thought legalizing drugs was more important than deregulating industries. But they are out there, and they do not appreciate being identified as right wing.
And in the end us "right-wing libertarians" and those "left-wing libertarians" are far more similar to each other than to any other group. Some of us are still having trouble wrapping our brains around the beliefs further from where we started, but for the most part, we all agree. Thus libertarianism is a different animal from the right wing, left wing spectrum. You might google for the "world's smallest political quiz," which is less useful as a quiz and more useful as a graph to show how libertarians envision the political "spectrum."
Incidentally, it was the very ESR you replied to who was mostly responsible for my shift from conservative, laissez-faire capitalist to anarcho-libertarian.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:1, Informative)
> Nice try, but (and I suspect many others) libertarians are definately on the
> right end of that spectrum you try to wash yourself of
This is just false by any but the most abused (and ultimately meaningless) definitions of the terms. The right and left wings are used, at most, to define two basic axes:
1) authoritarian (anarchism----totalitarianism)
2) moral (progressive-----traditionalist)
One can still be a progressively-minded libertarian or an anarcho-libertarian - neither of
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:3, Informative)
centrist Democrat, not a left-winger. I worked
for Henry Jackson's campaign in 1975. I found
myself repelled both by the racist conservatives
of the 1960s and the Communist-sympathizing "New
Left". I loathed both the anti-drug crowd and
the anti-war crowd. So my history of rejecting
both ends of the spectrum goes back a long way.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2)
He didn't imply that at all. Specifically, he said "racist conservatives." Are you denying that there exist racist conservatives? It's you who reads way too much into it.
I dunno some one should show me were the republicans are racists
Remember, he's talking about the '60s. How old are you? Are you aware of the shit that went on in the '60s? The world hasn't always been the way you see it now.
BTW, isn't bushes cabinate comprised of
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2)
Wasn't a main platform of the New Left anti-communism, as opposed to the Old Left? At least that's the impression I've gotten from my reading. Perhaps you can clarify.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2)
> right end of that spectrum you try to wash yourself of
This is just false by any but the most abused (and ultimately meaningless) definitions of the terms. The right and left wings are used, at most, to define two basic axes:
1) authoritarian (anarchismtotalitarianism)
2) moral (progressivetraditionalist)
One can still be a progressively-minded libertarian or an anarcho-libertarian - neither breed is conservative or right-w
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:5, Interesting)
Call it postmodernist if you must, but if the reviewer read his book and decided he comes across as conservative and right-wing, perhaps it is because his beliefs and those considered to be conservative and right-wing overlap.
There are only so many beliefs you can have within the realm of sanity; we tend to label these in context of an ever evolving spectrum. Like all arbitrary standards, whether or not you wish to be compared to it is fruitless; the standard exists in order to compare aspects of your beliefs. The best you can hope for in terms of non-comparison is "No Comment."
Having read several of his essays, and being at least somewhat aware of (admittedly stereotypical) tenets of Libertarianism, I'd say that both he and you most likely DO hold many "right-wing" views. It does not naturally follow that you hold views in line with the Republican party simply because it also considered to represent the "right-wing."
I think the arguement of being outside the spectrum is probably the one as laid out in the Wikipedia in regards to a graphing scale rather than a linear one. While I grant it may have merit, it in the context of a limited body of work the argument seems fallacious, as the seperation between economic freedom and personal freedom is not a concrete one and relies on typecasting and presumption that you must isolate the two.
Instead I would propose that Libertarians actually are the most pure form of the right wing, believing that freedoms must be preserved at all costs and being unwilling to compromise in the ways that Conservatives often have.
Even having read Hayek's essay on Conservatives, it still doesn't seem to address the basic point that the scale is a matter of convenience for the oberserver, not a strict definition of a set of beliefs.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:5, Informative)
There's a footnote about this in "What You Can't Say." If you went back to visit, say, Victorian England, your opinions would probably shock Whigs and Tories about equally. If your goal is to be close to the truth, then you are going to seem like an alien to the people of your own time. It's like projecting a point onto a line segment that is very far away. Where you end up on it is almost random.
Could someone explain a little bit please (Score:1)
Re:Could someone explain a little bit please (Score:4, Interesting)
I've found most often the best meaning to these words is based on what people call others, not as they identify themselves.
Part of the problem is that the terms have changed meaning over time, as they were concocted so as to oppose themselves to another group.
Imagine the pro-life and pro-choice groups, in 30 years. Let's say that the stance that all abortion should be illegal fades away to obscurity, and is replaced by the idea that the most important thing is that both the mother and the father have a say in what happens.
This group is opposing itself to the pro-choice group (of 30 years in the future, keep in mind!), and they want to say exactly what they believe in their name, so thay call themselves the Rights party.
Well now, "pro-choice" makes little sense, since both groups desire for abortion to be legal. But nevertheless, there they are.
The process repeats itself over the years, and the terms stop meaning anything. You could really start saying "party A" and "party B" and be about as accurate.
The things that don't change are fundamental ideas about government: proper use of police powers, rights of component states, how law is created, jurisprudence, rights of commerce, central planning, etc.
Which groups are which, though...that changes all the time.
L/liberal (Score:2)
A good modern example of this is the Australian Liberal party, which has a similar platform to the US Republican party (pro-war, anti-gay marriage etc). On his recent US visit, Liberal PM John Howard had to explain at length to Arnie that he wasn't an actual leftist liberal. Hilarity and terrible accents ensued.
Re: Differences among political groups (Score:1)
The main difference between most political groups is which of your freedoms they want to suppress.
For example, Democrats and left-wingers generally want to suppress your freedoms use your property however you see fit, while Republicans and right-wingers generally want to suppress your freedoms to use your body however you see fit.
Only Libertarians and similar groups wish to provide individuals with the
Re:Could someone explain a little bit please (Score:2)
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2)
I think the real problem is a severe allergy to the sticky stuff on the inside of the label...
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:4, Informative)
It's hard to tell from the few essays I've read by Graham whether he is more right than left-wing, but it seems pretty clear that he is leaning to the libertarian side of things. Note that you could be both libertarian and right-wing, and have more in common with me (left-wing libertarian) than you would with GWB.
As to what the reviewer thought... sure, that might be postmodernist. A lot of people in Europe think I'm American when in fact I am Canadian; their belief and their claim does not change this. You could deconstruct the meaning of Canadian or American, but you couldn't reduce the fact I hold a Canadian (but not American) citizenship and passport.
It's murkier with political labels because there is no "proof" that can be easily produced such as a passport. All we can say then is that according to a right-left political spectrum hypothesis, much of Graham's politics seem unexplainable -perhaps even insane- while using a spectrum they are quite straightforward, and arguably more internally coherent than what passes as right or left-wing these days.
Since I don't like postmodernism all that much, I'll finish by saying in Wilberian fashion that the compass includes and transcends the old idea of the spectrum, and is therefore closer to the truth.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2)
Or even better(?), check out Political Survey [beasts.org], the open source equivalent, where the methodology is open to all to inspect and criticise.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:1)
That was one thing that bothered me about the political compass. There are a few issues with this survey, such as length (75 questions!) and choice of controls (drop-downs instead of radio buttons?), but the fact that it is open more than compensates!
Thanks for pointing this out!
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:1)
it has a shorter quizand you can compare yourself to friends.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2)
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2)
It is even more inane in the context of the book because the book is not about politics nor does it often touch on politics.
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2)
It's a shame, because I've really enjoyed
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2, Insightful)
At last, an explanation for the pages of drivel pg recently published as "What You Can't Say" [paulgraham.com]. For such a smart guy, I was agape with confusion as to how pg had gotten himself into the absurd position of arguing that heresy is "cool", and if you are not a heretic then "...Odds are you just think whatever you're told" - it was like reading the rants of some eloquent teenager, full of childish angst and rage toward authority.
The word heresy means to choose or to pick out
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:1)
A hobby it may be, but how beneficial is it to create another schism from Lisp? Arc, whatever it may improve upon, will only serve to damage Lisp, and the Lisp community, by diluting it with yet another pointless dialect. Why doesn't pg use his time and skill to make ANSI Common Lisp better? Why does he have to go off, like a typical heretic, and bastardise the one true faith jus
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:1)
Going by the 4 point model of the political spectrum, you have right wing, left wing, anti-authoritarian & authoritarian.
Libertarianism is supposedly at the anti-authoritarian point, however those I've met, and read, most are actually more towards right wing anti-authoritarianism.
Part of this may be due to the fact that many left wing anti-authoritarians are more likely to refer to themselves as anarchists, or just, anti-authoritarian.
But going back to those four poin
Re:Paul Graham's politics (Score:2)
I do think that both you and Paul have great writing styles so I read most of what you publish, but I definitely disagree on your views on economy.
Some of the things you've written, especially Homeste
Value added? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the essays are available at Graham's website, but frankly I am a fan of dead trees and appreciated that this book could be read on the bus or in bed. If you would prefer something you cna read on the bus then a PDF of the second chapter, "Hackers & Painters" is available from the O'Reilly page linked above.
What about those of us who aren't necessarily a fan of "dead trees"? Is there still a reason for us to purchase the book? The reviewer doesn't say. He states that "most of the essays are available at Graham's website". How many is "most"? Are the ones only available in the book second-rate essays? Or are we missing some real gems by just perusing his website?
I don't mean to be overly harsh towards the reviewer but the question of what is the 'value added' in this book version of collected essays seems like something that really should be addressed. I've read many of the essays described in the review off the website so I'm already familiar with Graham's writing style and world view. When I read a review, I have one question uppermost in my mind: "Should I buy this book?" Alas, after reading this review I don't know if I should or not.
Can someone here (maybe the reviewer?) please give a description of what's in the book versus what's available on the website? Even a count of how many new essays are in the book would be a start.
GMD
Re:Value added? (Score:5, Informative)
*What You Can't Say
Stopping Spam
So Far, So Good
Filters that Fight Back
*Hackers and Painters
*The Hundred-Year Language
*Why Nerds are Unpopular
Better Bayesian Filtering
*Design and Research
Will Filters Kill Spam?
*A Plan for Spam
Spam is Different
Filters vs. Blacklists
*Revenge of the Nerds
Succinctness is Power
*Taste for Makers
*Beating the Averages
Being Popular
*The Other Road Ahead
What Made Lisp Different
The Roots of Lisp
Programming Bottom-Up
Lisp for Web-Based Applications
Why Arc Isn't Especially Object-Oriented
Five Questions about Language Design
If Lisp is So Great
Java's Cover
What Languages Fix
Chapter 1 of Ansi Common Lisp
Chapter 2 of Ansi Common Lisp
E-Commerce
And the following are on the book:
*Why Nerds Are Unpopular
*Hackers and Painters (also available at http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/hackpaint/chapter/
*What You Can't Say
Good Bad Attitude
*The Other Road Ahead
How to Make Wealth
Mind the Gap
*A Plan for Spam
*Taste for Makers
Programming Languages Explained
*The Hundred-Year Language
*Beating the Averages
*Revenge of the Nerds
The Dream Language
*Design and Research
the ones marked with a * are on both
I would still recommend buying his book.
Re:Value added? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Value added? (Score:5, Informative)
The ones which are also available on the website are: Why Nerds are Unpopular, Hackers and PAinters, What You Can't Say, The Other Road Ahead, The Hundred YEar Language, BEating the Averages, Revenge of the Nerds and Design and Research.
The ones which seem to be missing from the website (i.e, the ones for which youwould have to buy the book!) include Good Bad Attitude, How to Make Wealth, Mind the Gap, A Plan for Spam, Taste for Makers, Programming LAnguages Explained, The Dream Language.
There are also some on the website which are not in the book.
I had the table of contents from the book and the list of essays from the website reproduced here, but the lameness filter (designed to ensure lameness, I guess) kept saying that the characters per line was 36.
Re:Value added? (Score:1)
A couple of these are available from his website as well:
A Plan for Spam [paulgraham.com]
A Taste for Makers [paulgraham.com]
I'd like to now if "The Dream Language" is a genuinly new article, or a rehash of his Being Popular [paulgraham.com] article.
Re:Value added? (Score:2)
4. Good Bad Attitude
6. How to Make Wealth
7. Mind the Gap
10. Programming Languages Explained
14. The Dream Language
15. Design and Research
The author's website has the following articles not in the book:
Stopping Spam
So Far, So Good
Filters that Fight Back
Better Bayesian Filtering
Design and Research
Will Filters Kill Spam?
Spam is Different
Re:Value added? (Score:1)
According to O'Reilly, the essays that appear in both the book and website were partially rewritten for the book. About 15% of the material in the book is new (again, that's O'Reilly's estimate).
The book is a good deal more than just a reprint of online material.
A nice quote... (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice to see he remembers how he felt about LISP at first; gives me hope for my own LISP aspirations
FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having read the free chapter at OReilly it seems to me he intends to inform from his own experience - hence the unwavering tone, 'this is what I see'. Why would he have to show doubts, if any, in such a case? Finally, why would he want to confuse his audience by switching tacks in midstream? I think the tone is perfect: informative, entertaining, and convincing all at the same time - while keeping to the point.
"Doubt" and "uncertainty" are fallacies (Score:4, Interesting)
A good argument does not allow for doubt or uncertainty. You can't effectively persuade people if you put things in terms of "probably" or "maybe" or "I think."
When you have been proven wrong in your argument, then you admit you were wrong. Those who are courageous enough to admit their errors, and then to alter their beliefs, don't need the excuse of doubt and uncertainty in their arguments in the first place.
There is a group of people who take one of the ideas of critical thinking - to question everything - to the false conclusion that we must therefore live with doubt and uncertainty because we can't empirically know it all. "Question everything" becomes "doubt everything," and then you have assertions such as this: that the author is conservative and dogmatic in his views. The aspiring critical thinker, perceiving a flaw in another's thinking, projects that flaw onto the other's argument and cannot except it by virtue of the thought process used to arrive at the conclusion.
Re:"Doubt" and "uncertainty" are fallacies (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:"Doubt" and "uncertainty" are fallacies (Score:3, Interesting)
I never advocated nor suggested the use of generalization, flawed reason, or hasty conclusions. I did not condone the wilful misrepresentation of evidence. These are, in themselves, fallacies of argument and of logic. You have made these very errors in supposing that I implied such a thing.
Arguments stand or fall on their merits. Th
quote from Hackers and Painters (Score:3, Interesting)
Main difference being, artists who ignore fashion may be remembered hundreds of years later despite not being popular during their lifetimes. However, I suspect that other than a couple of early programmers, all hackers will be quickly forgotten. Nice old paintings sell for big bucks, but old code is just trivia for geeks.
Extrordinary (Score:1)
from a Painter dating a Hacker (Score:1)