Comparing development effort : Lisp and functional languages versus Java.
israel r t
> CL programmers who want to work for money have to be _good_, as they stand on their own.
> Java programmers can be amazingly incompetent and ignorant and still get
> jobs, because they rely on so many others around them.
> it is hard for someone who hires programmers by the truckload to believe
> that one CL wizard can do the work of at least 10 Java men.
Is there any objective evidence for this statement ?
The only study that I am aware of that compared Lisp and Java
productivity found that the median development time with Lisp was half
of the development time with Java . While this is good, it does not
translate into a 10 : 1 advantage.
http://www-aig.jpl.nasa.gov/public/home/gat/lisp-study.html
The conclusions of the study ( done at JPL ) were interesting however:
"Our results suggest that Lisp is superior to Java and comparable to
C++ in terms of runtime, and superior to both in terms of programming
effort, and variability of results.
This last item is particularly significant as it translates directly
into reduced risk for software development.
Lisp provides nearly all of the advantages that make Java attractive,
including automatic memory management, dynamic object-oriented
programming, and portability.
Lisp is often considered an esoteric AI language. Our results suggest
that it might be worthwhile to revisit this view. "
Software Scavenger
> The only study that I am aware of that compared Lisp and Java
> productivity found that the median development time with Lisp was half
For real work Lisp might have a much bigger advantage than for
contests. If for a typical contest it's twice as productive, where
most of the power of Lisp is not even needed, it's easy to imagine
it's being 10 times as productive for real work. I don't know how we
would go about proving it. But can anyone prove the converse, that
the Lisp/Java productivity ratio for real work is less than 10 to 1?
Can anyone even prove it's less than 100 to 1?
israel r t
Scavenger) wrote:
>israel r t <isra...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<402q2uoouki7utr49...@4ax.com>...
>
>> The only study that I am aware of that compared Lisp and Java
>> productivity found that the median development time with Lisp was half
>
>But can anyone prove the converse, that
>the Lisp/Java productivity ratio for real work is less than 10 to 1?
>Can anyone even prove it's less than 100 to 1?
No.
However, if lack of disproof is adequate proof, then I could claim
that Lisp is Z times more productive than Java and might choose to
use a value of 10,0000 for Z.
That would be patently absurd.
Erik Naggum
| Is there any objective evidence for this statement?
* cubic...@mailandnews.com (Software Scavenger)
> Can anyone even prove it's less than 100 to 1?
* israel r t <isra...@optushome.com.au>
| No.
:
| That would be patently absurd.
Please try to figure out that your request for "objective evidence" has
been shown to be nothing more than a hostile rhetorical device devoid of
constructive value when you answered "no" to a question that should be
much easier to prove on your part, "objective evidence" clearly being
instrumental in a proof. When you cannot dish up any "objective
evidence" for a counter-claim an order of magnitude stronger than the
one you request it for, what is patently absurd is your initial request.
People who are so ill educated in logic that they talk about "proof" and
"objective evidence" in informal settings, fail to understand that what
they are doing is simply being hostile idiots wielding a weapon that they
do not understand. In a formal setting, "evidence" and "proof" derive
their legitimacy on consensus and unanimity of both principles and
premises of the field. Since this is clearly very useful and valuable in
mathematics and physics, some people who do not understand _how_ it is
valuable have instead been seriously confused and think that failure to
"prove" something or failure to provide "objective evidence" is somehow a
weakness of the other party to their discussion until one starts to think
about how little of what we hold to be true that we can prove to a person
who has signalled not only disbelief, but a requirement to believe in it
that far exceeds any requirements satisfied by anything he already
believes.
Using "proof" and "objective evidence" in a rhetorical fashion like this
is nothing more than evidence of a person's lack of ability to deal with
his feelings of congitive dissonance -- the feeling of conflict between
what he already believes and what he is asked to believe. What this is a
good symptom of, is a person who has believed only the first thing he has
heard basically without evidence or proof whatsoever, but when it needs
to be disproven or replaced by another belief, he applies a standard of
truth to it that is intended to show only two things: (1) that what he
already believes remains unchallenged, and (2) that whatever challenged
it did not stand up under scrutiny. This would not be so bad if people
always believed true and proven things, but since they mostly believe a
lot of nonsense, and only those who believe a lot of nonsense use "proof"
and "objective evidence" to fight off challenges (those who know that
their own beliefs are true and proven, can simply provide some evidence
of their own beliefs to counter unfounded claims), using the tools of
logic in a petty and hostile reaction to things one does not want to hear
is somewhat ironically a strong signal to their surroundings that they
lack strength of conviction in their own beliefs.
How should we then face new information that challenges our current
beliefs? Assume it is true and see what follows. Of course, if we do
this, idiots who fail to understand that the level of goodwill required
by this methodology will waste a lot of our time. Idiots who refuse to
back down from their false beliefs and/or sheer insanity, then become a
source of flame wars and continued spurts of hatred on USENET.
///
--
The past is not more important than the future, despite what your culture
has taught you. Your future observations, conclusions, and beliefs are
more important to you than those in your past ever will be. The world is
changing so fast the balance between the past and the future has shifted.
Patrick May
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:10:18 GMT, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.net> wrote:
> > it is hard for someone who hires programmers by the truckload to
> > believe that one CL wizard can do the work of at least 10 Java
> > men.
>
> Is there any objective evidence for this statement ?
I noticed the following on the Haskell site,
http://www.haskell.org/aboutHaskell.html:
Haskell, a purely functional programming language, offers you:
- Substantially increased programmer productivity (Ericsson
measured an improvement factor of between 9 and 25 in one
set of experiments on telephony software).
I didn't dig further, but since it is Ericsson, I'd guess they were
using Erlang rather than Haskell or Common Lisp. Nonetheless, it may
be an interesting data point regarding productivity of functional
versus other paradigms in at least one application domain.
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
p...@spe.com | (C++, Java, ObjectStore, Oracle, CORBA, UML)
Stephan Tolksdorf
news:402q2uoouki7utr49...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 14:10:18 GMT, Erik Naggum <er...@naggum.net> wrote:
>
> > CL programmers who want to work for money have to be _good_, as they
stand on their own.
> > Java programmers can be amazingly incompetent and ignorant and still
get
> > jobs, because they rely on so many others around them.
>
> > it is hard for someone who hires programmers by the truckload to
believe
> > that one CL wizard can do the work of at least 10 Java men.
>
> Is there any objective evidence for this statement ?
>
> The only study that I am aware of that compared Lisp and Java
> productivity found that the median development time with Lisp was half
> of the development time with Java . While this is good, it does not
> translate into a 10 : 1 advantage.
It is hard to make statements about productivity gains through the use of
certain languages. Something any experienced coder will agree upon is that
"good" programmers do have a productivity that is 10 times higher (or even
higher) than the productivity of a quite incompetent one. I think this
productivity difference is pretty seldom in other fields of the industry.
Keeping apart both effects makes judging language productivity hard.
Stephan
Software Scavenger
> It is hard to make statements about productivity gains through the use of
> certain languages. Something any experienced coder will agree upon is that
> "good" programmers do have a productivity that is 10 times higher (or even
> higher) than the productivity of a quite incompetent one. I think this
> productivity difference is pretty seldom in other fields of the industry.
> Keeping apart both effects makes judging language productivity hard.
Productivity has to be defined better before we can even say that much
about it. The best programmers write much better programs. It
doesn't make much sense to compare those programs against inferior
programs on the basis of development speed. We have to take
maintenance into account, and how well the program meets the needs of
the users. Thus a 10-to-1 ratio of development speed might actually
be a 100-to-1 ratio of overall productivity.
It might also be useful to consider the productivity of large groups
of programmers working together. Their management and policies become
major factors. It seems to me that the management, policies, and
average level of skill and talent, are all likely to be much better
for a typical Lisp team than for a typical Java team. Thus the team
productivity might actually have a ratio of 1000 to 1, or some such
extreme.
Such factors might have made Lisp a lot more popular by now, except
for one big obstacle. When Lisp was first becoming somewhat popular
and well known in the 1980's, the average computer did not have enough
power to make the best use of it. From that and from other factors,
it gained a reputation as a purely academic language which was
considered useless for real work. Now it seems to be finally
overcoming that reputation, and may have a much better future.
Kenny Tilton
Software Scavenger wrote:
>
> israel r t <isra...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<402q2uoouki7utr49...@4ax.com>...
>
> > The only study that I am aware of that compared Lisp and Java
> > productivity found that the median development time with Lisp was half
>
> For real work Lisp might have a much bigger advantage than for
> contests.
I had the same thought. Lisp supports meta-solutions which not only pay
off more and more in the long run, but which also require greater design
effort up front. If anything a Lisper tortoise seems to be going slower
than the hacker hare because the tortoise is still at the starting line
building a rocket sled.
This could be one small reason why cool languages are not widely
used--how many tasks require meta-solutions, and how many programmers
would come up with one even if the language supported such a thing?
kt
Thomas F. Burdick
> Software Scavenger wrote:
> >
> > israel r t <isra...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<402q2uoouki7utr49...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > > The only study that I am aware of that compared Lisp and Java
> > > productivity found that the median development time with Lisp was half
> >
> > For real work Lisp might have a much bigger advantage than for
> > contests.
>
> I had the same thought. Lisp supports meta-solutions which not only pay
> off more and more in the long run, but which also require greater design
> effort up front.
> If anything a Lisper tortoise seems to be going slower than the
> hacker hare because the tortoise is still at the starting line
> building a rocket sled.
I'm so saving that as a response for the next time someone asks me
why, if I've been working on something for a day or two, my program
still can't do anything.
> This could be one small reason why cool languages are not widely
> used--how many tasks require meta-solutions, and how many programmers
> would come up with one even if the language supported such a thing?
As for the first part of the question, I think a whole lot of tasks
require meta-solutions. I think the problem is that not many of the
tasks that a beginner in a given language can solve, do. As for the
second part, a lot, once they got used to the idea of "the first thing
I do when solving this problem is figure out what sort of framework I
should build myself within which I'll do the actual solving." Until
then, though, probably very few.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Sander Vesik
Or you might treat Z as being a real and make it be some other value,
possibly much smaller than 1...
> That would be patently absurd.
The absence of comparisons of the style 'how does language x compare to
lisp' done by non-lispers shoul dbe a dead giveaway that lisp users are
the only ones who would give even a dead rat for knowing it.
Nobody will bother make a comparison to a language they don't feel
threatening to eat away their market share (or form which they would
try to claim it)...
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
israel r t
>> Is there any objective evidence for this statement ?
>
> I noticed the following on the Haskell site,
>http://www.haskell.org/aboutHaskell.html:
>
> Haskell, a purely functional programming language, offers you:
> - Substantially increased programmer productivity (Ericsson
> measured an improvement factor of between 9 and 25 in one
> set of experiments on telephony software).
>
>I didn't dig further, but since it is Ericsson, I'd guess they were
>using Erlang rather than Haskell or Common Lisp.
Many thanks.
I'll check the Erlang site and will post anything interesting I find
there.
israel r t
>I didn't dig further, but since it is Ericsson, I'd guess they were
>using Erlang rather than Haskell or Common Lisp. Nonetheless, it may
>be an interesting data point regarding productivity of functional
>versus other paradigms in at least one application domain.
Further to Erlangs productivity, I found an interesting article by Ulf
Wiger "Four-fold Increase in Productivity and Quality :
Industrial-Strength Functional Programming" at
http://www.erlang.se/publications/Ulf_Wiger.pdf
Once again, many thanks.
Kenny Tilton
"Thomas F. Burdick" wrote:
>
> Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> > If anything a Lisper tortoise seems to be going slower than the
> > hacker hare because the tortoise is still at the starting line
> > building a rocket sled.
>
> I'm so saving that as a response for the next time someone asks me
> why, if I've been working on something for a day or two, my program
> still can't do anything.
Might not help. I once was brought in as a per diem consultant on a
COBOL project, first assignment was to make a browser-style app covering
nineteen nodes in a tree. I did not go for a fully table-driven
solution, but I did use COPY...REPLACING to the max so a single source
yielded all 19 browsers.
One Monday the project lead complained he had not even seen the first
screen yet. Reminded that i was working on all 19--the lead knew from
the get-go I was doing all-in-one -- he said good but he had to see the
first screen by Friday or else. Of course I gave him all nineteen. He
responded, "That's great, if it's true."
He then took the source home and the next day said he could not
understand it, so they might not be able to use it. At least he laughed
when I closed my eyes and banged my head against the wall.
Then we had a code review with another manager to see if the code could
be understood. 45 min, no questions, and when I was done the other
manager said, "pretty obvious stuff". |<:( |<:(
I agreed, pretty obvious, something anyone including the lead could have
done if they had reached that high. OTOH, the lead would see it as
venturing into the unknown when cloning one source 18 times (and
revisiting all 19 for any change/fix to the core) yields to
gruntwork--lots of it, but mindless so...wait for it.../safe/.
Programming is hard, yet the culture of corporate in-house development
has the Lone Programmer out there with Their head to be cut off if Their
code fails. Without the encouragement to try high-wire acts, few get the
experience of succeeding at same. Without that experience, the risk of
never getting ignition on that rocket is too great, esp. when the
gruntwork is a slam dunk.
The fun thing about what we are doing here at CliniSys is that there is
no gruntwork solution, one reason why no one has built the app we have
now. The app is a throw-away app; use it once (possibly for a few years)
then throw it away. But we want to sell hundreds a year, so we /had/ to
create a meta-app.
But that gets back to: how many tasks are like that? I do not know.
Perhaps they are out there waiting for the technology to catch up, just
as the CliniSys app is something the industry has been laying seige to
for many futile years. If so, the future is bright for Lisp and other
dynamic, reflexive, GCed languages with generic functions, procedural
macros and lots of parentheses.
kenny
clinisys
Kenny Tilton
Sander Vesik wrote:
>
> Nobody will bother make a comparison to a language they don't feel
> threatening to eat away their market share (or form which they would
> try to claim it)...
I am puzzled. The idea was that a large enterprise -- a consumer of
languages, not a vendor -- would do a comparison to decide long-term
strategy re development. This seems to be a straw man about Bill not
being threatened by CL enough to test and see if...what, MS should halt
VC++ developemnt and do VCL?
Anyway, I agree that not even a user of C++ would attempt a side-by-side
experiment. If they are considering switching they are (1) early
adopters (ironic when applied to CL) (2) fully aware how badly C++
sucks, so: they need only a few hours toying with a free CL download to
realize they should switch.
kenny
clinisys
israel r t
<san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
>Nobody will bother make a comparison to a language they don't feel
>threatening to eat away their market share (or form which they would
>try to claim it)...
Market share is not the most important goal.
It is more important to be able to use decent tools that have not been
dumbed down to the level of the "average programmer"
Sander Vesik
The continuing holier-than-thou attitude the average lisp programmer
(who is not any brighter than the average non-lisp programmer anyways)
never has and never will help improve the wider spread use of the language.
Ray Dillinger
> It is hard to make statements about productivity gains through the use of
> certain languages. Something any experienced coder will agree upon is that
> "good" programmers do have a productivity that is 10 times higher (or even
> higher) than the productivity of a quite incompetent one. I think this
> productivity difference is pretty seldom in other fields of the industry.
> Keeping apart both effects makes judging language productivity hard.
An interesting corollary of which is that if you can identify
a language that is preferred by a community of very good programmers,
and almost nobody else, you should be able to attract a cadre of
very good programmers by offering jobs working with that language.
Bear
(mindful of the crossposts, but allowing the
crossposting as this is in fact relevant to
all the newsgroups involved.)
Kenny Tilton
Sander Vesik wrote:
> The continuing holier-than-thou attitude the average lisp programmer...
There are no average Lisp programmers. We are the Priesthood. Offerings
of incense or cash will do.
> (who is not any brighter than the average non-lisp programmer anyways)
yep, Lisp just makes us look smart.
> never has and never will help improve the wider spread use of the language.
What is deadly is a language community that is /not/ delighted with its
language and itself.
kenny
clinisys
Coby Beck
"Sander Vesik" <san...@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote in message
news:10097453...@haldjas.folklore.ee...
It is worth pointing out that you make this comment in response to a posting
from the Scheme community.
That said, I also think "average lisp programmer" is not fair. It is a vocal
minority that tends to make its passion sound like arrogance.
That said, I think its not unfair to say the "average programmer" is not above
average intelligence and the tool market is generally aimed at helping
programmer shortcomings. This principle is independant of language.
--
Coby
(remove #\space "coby . beck @ opentechgroup . com")
israel r t
wrote:
>Sander Vesik wrote:
>> The continuing holier-than-thou attitude the average lisp programmer...
>There are no average Lisp programmers. We are the Priesthood. Offerings
>of incense or cash will do.
Occasional sacrifices of C++ and Java users would be appreciated.
Brian P Templeton
> Software Scavenger wrote:
>>
>> israel r t <isra...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:<402q2uoouki7utr49...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> > The only study that I am aware of that compared Lisp and Java
>> > productivity found that the median development time with Lisp was half
>>
>> For real work Lisp might have a much bigger advantage than for
>> contests.
>
> I had the same thought. Lisp supports meta-solutions which not only pay
> off more and more in the long run, but which also require greater design
> effort up front. If anything a Lisper tortoise seems to be going slower
> than the hacker hare because the tortoise is still at the starting line
> building a rocket sled.
>
Considering the places where hacker culture originated, and assuming
that absenting alliterations is allowably acceptable, would `loser
hare' be a better phrase here?
(Other than that minor detail, I'm also saving this remark, probably
in my fortunes file.)
> This could be one small reason why cool languages are not widely
> used--how many tasks require meta-solutions, and how many programmers
> would come up with one even if the language supported such a thing?
>
> kt
--
BPT <b...@tunes.org> /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
backronym for Linux: \ / No HTML or RTF in mail
Linux Is Not Unix X No MS-Word in mail
Meme plague ;) ---------> / \ Respect Open Standards
Kenny Tilton
Brian P Templeton wrote:
>
> Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
> Considering the places where hacker culture originated, and assuming
> that absenting alliterations is allowably acceptable, would `loser
> hare' be a better phrase here?
Right, that usage is off base, unfortunately because I have my own
personal definition for "hacker" -- never a good thing when one wants to
communicate. It's just that when I regard the code of hoi polloi the
image of someone editing code with a machete springs to mind.
Curious, I sought and found on
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/hacker.html
"hacker -- A slang term for a computer enthusiast, i.e., a person who
enjoys learning programming languages and computer systems and can often
be considered an expert on the subject(s). Among professional
programmers, depending on how it used, the term can be either
complimentary or derogatory, although it is developing an increasingly
derogatory connotation. The pejorative sense of hacker is becoming more
prominent largely because the popular press has coopted the term to
refer to individuals who gain unauthorized access to computer systems
for the purpose of stealing and corrupting data. Hackers, themselves,
maintain that the proper term for such individuals is cracker."
No support there, my derogatory spin was not about unauthorized access.
Though I am further alarmed to discover that the meaning I most closely
associate with "hacker" (breaker in) is that of the popular press.
I get a hare of support over here:
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci212220,00.html
" Hacker is a term used by some to mean "a clever programmer" and by
others, especially journalists or their editors, to mean "someone who
tries to break into computer systems."
1) Eric Raymond, compiler of The New Hacker's Dictionary, defines a
hacker as a clever programmer. A "good hack" is a clever solution to a
programming problem and "hacking" is the act of doing it. Raymond lists
five possible characteristics that qualify one as a hacker, which we
paraphrase here:
A person who enjoys learning details of a programming language or
system
A person who enjoys actually doing the programming rather than just
theorizing about it
A person capable of appreciating someone else's hacking
A person who picks up programming quickly
A person who is an expert at a particular programming language or
system, as in "UNIX hacker" ...."
The support I see is in the association with "clever", which I also
consider a pejorative when it comes to programming. Quoth Spinal Tap:
"It's a fine line between clever..." "...and stupid."
I guess what I need is a word for craftless programmers. Wait, hang on:
From none other than http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/
"hacker n.
[originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person who
enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch
their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only
the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even
obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about
programming. ...."
Makes furniture with an axe. I use that metaphor all the time. Also
lumberjack vs cabinetmaker. But it is hard to see lumberjack as an
insult, they're OK, they sleep all night and they work all day.
Suggestions for terms to denote craftless programmers still welcome, not
necessarily alliterative with hare.
"butcher"? The brits use "cowboy" in some unflattering sense. Others?
kenny
clinisys
Brian P Templeton
That's an incorrect meaning, IMO. The word `hacker' has been around
for a very long time (maybe the 1950s or 1960s), and the media's
misdefinition began only recently (partly due to the book _Hackers_!).
Also, if I had to choose one place where the meaning of hacker
originated, I would probably select MIT (TMRC and the AI Lab),
although that's only my opinion.
> I get a hare of support over here:
> http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci212220,00.html
>
> " Hacker is a term used by some to mean "a clever programmer" and by
> others, especially journalists or their editors, to mean "someone who
> tries to break into computer systems."
>
> 1) Eric Raymond, compiler of The New Hacker's Dictionary, defines a
> hacker as a clever programmer. A "good hack" is a clever solution to a
> programming problem and "hacking" is the act of doing it. Raymond lists
> five possible characteristics that qualify one as a hacker, which we
> paraphrase here:
>
> A person who enjoys learning details of a programming language or
> system
> A person who enjoys actually doing the programming rather than just
> theorizing about it
> A person capable of appreciating someone else's hacking
> A person who picks up programming quickly
> A person who is an expert at a particular programming language or
> system, as in "UNIX hacker" ...."
>
> The support I see is in the association with "clever", which I also
> consider a pejorative when it comes to programming. Quoth Spinal Tap:
> "It's a fine line between clever..." "...and stupid."
>
`Clever' doesn't *always* mean `bad', `stupid', or `hairy'. I've seen
some clever and ``airy'' programs.
> I guess what I need is a word for craftless programmers. Wait, hang on:
>
> From none other than http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/
>
> "hacker n.
>
> [originally, someone who makes furniture with an axe] 1. A person who
> enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch
> their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only
> the minimum necessary. 2. One who programs enthusiastically (even
> obsessively) or who enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about
> programming. ...."
>
> Makes furniture with an axe. I use that metaphor all the time. Also
> lumberjack vs cabinetmaker. But it is hard to see lumberjack as an
> insult, they're OK, they sleep all night and they work all day.
>
> Suggestions for terms to denote craftless programmers still welcome, not
> necessarily alliterative with hare.
>
How about `loser'?
______________
____/ `dict loser' \__________________________________________________
| [...]
| From Jargon File (4.0.0/24 July 1996) [jargon]:
|
| loser /n./ An unexpectedly bad situation, program,
| programmer, or person. Someone who habitually loses. (Even
^^^^^^^^^^
| winners can lose occasionally.) Someone who knows not and knows
| not that he knows not. Emphatic forms are `real loser', `total
| loser', and `complete loser' (but not **`moby loser', which
| would be a contradiction in terms). See {luser}.
|_____________________________________________________________________
> "butcher"? The brits use "cowboy" in some unflattering sense. Others?
>
> kenny
> clinisys
--
Kenny Tilton
Brian P Templeton wrote:
>
> How about `loser'?
Chess has a great word: patzer. Yiddish. Translated as "wood-pusher".
Exactly the right connotation I am after.
We could translate to "typist", or borrow patzer/woodpusher.
kenny
clinisys
Dorai Sitaram
Brian P Templeton <b...@tunes.org> wrote:
>Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>> I guess what I need is a word for craftless programmers. Wait, hang on:
>>
>> From none other than http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/
>>
>>
>> Suggestions for terms to denote craftless programmers still welcome, not
>> necessarily alliterative with hare.
>>
>How about `loser'?
> ______________
>____/ `dict loser' \__________________________________________________
>| [...]
>| From Jargon File (4.0.0/24 July 1996) [jargon]:
>|
>| loser /n./ An unexpectedly bad situation, program,
>| programmer, or person. Someone who habitually loses. (Even
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>| winners can lose occasionally.) Someone who knows not and knows
>| not that he knows not. Emphatic forms are `real loser', `total
>| loser', and `complete loser' (but not **`moby loser', which
>| would be a contradiction in terms). See {luser}.
>|_____________________________________________________________________
>
The cycling community has a (not always pejorative)
term for people who ride bicycles but are not adept at
it the way a dedicated cyclist is. That term is POB,
for Person On Bicycle. Rhymes with "Bob".
That suggests PUPL, Person Using Programming Language,
with a choice of at least three possible pronunciations
(pupil, pupple, poople) that usefully vary in the
amount of judgmentalness they pack.
--d
Kenny Tilton
Dorai Sitaram wrote:
>
> In article <878zbc1...@tunes.org>,
> Brian P Templeton <b...@tunes.org> wrote:
> >Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> >
> >> I guess what I need is a word for craftless programmers. Wait, hang on:
> The cycling community has a (not always pejorative)
> term for people who ride bicycles but are not adept at
> it the way a dedicated cyclist is. That term is POB,
> for Person On Bicycle. Rhymes with "Bob".
>
> That suggests PUPL, Person Using Programming Language,
or PUK, person using keyboard?
k
c
Dr Pibb
> The cycling community has a (not always pejorative)
> term for people who ride bicycles but are not adept at
> it the way a dedicated cyclist is. That term is POB,
> for Person On Bicycle. Rhymes with "Bob".
>
> That suggests PUPL, Person Using Programming Language,
> with a choice of at least three possible pronunciations
> (pupil, pupple, poople) that usefully vary in the
> amount of judgmentalness they pack.
>
> --d
The chess community has a word that really fits, I think. I am not
sure if POB has the same connotation... In chess, the term 'patzer'
basically means what I think of when I think of a "craftless
programmer"... It is not necessarily pejorative (I, for example, am a
patzer, in that I have no deep understanding/knowledge of the game,
but this does not prevent me from enjoying it)
Kenny Tilton
Dr Pibb wrote:
> The chess community has a word that really fits, I think. I am not
> sure if POB has the same connotation... In chess, the term 'patzer'
> basically means what I think of when I think of a "craftless
> programmer"... It is not necessarily pejorative ....
yeah, i was going to say that patzer has a tolerant warmth to it which
might come in handy when i want to critique a co-worker. "loser"
OTOH.... :)
kenny
clinisys
Thomas F. Burdick
> Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
[ in an on-line encyclopedia ]
> > Hackers, themselves, maintain that the proper term for such
> > individuals is cracker."
It's just too bad (no, actually I think it's a good thing) that people
don't use the word "cracker" that way. It's really not possible to
resurrect sords from slave days without their offensive connotations,
and I'm amazed that people actually try.
> > No support there, my derogatory spin was not about unauthorized access.
> > Though I am further alarmed to discover that the meaning I most closely
> > associate with "hacker" (breaker in) is that of the popular press.
>
> That's an incorrect meaning, IMO.
No, it's absolutely correct. Words can have multiple, even
contradictory meanings. That's the way languages work.
> The word `hacker' has been around for a very long time (maybe the
> 1950s or 1960s), and the media's misdefinition began only recently
> (partly due to the book _Hackers_!). Also, if I had to choose one
> place where the meaning of hacker originated, I would probably
> select MIT (TMRC and the AI Lab), although that's only my opinion.
So? Although that is _one_ meaning of the word, it's not the only
one. It doesn't really matter that you don't approve of the people
using "hacker" in a pejorative sense, the fact is that it is used that
way, and that's probably the most common usage.
Kaz Kylheku
>That's an incorrect meaning, IMO. The word `hacker' has been around
>for a very long time (maybe the 1950s or 1960s), and the media's
>misdefinition began only recently (partly due to the book _Hackers_!).
You can't entirely blame the media. One problem is that it is the
crackers who refer to themselves as hackers, and they've been doing
that for over twenty years.
Ray Dillinger
>
> It's just too bad (no, actually I think it's a good thing) that people
> don't use the word "cracker" that way. It's really not possible to
> resurrect sords from slave days without their offensive connotations,
> and I'm amazed that people actually try.
>
Wow. The connotation to me was always
breaks (into) stuff
--> breaking
--> cracking
-->cracker.
I never made a connection to the derogatory for slaveowner until
you just mentioned it. It doesn't fit the use, applied to people
who are breaking things. If the term had been applied in the
context of people using the law for coercion or repression of
others, (such as the MPAA, RIAA, Adobe, Microsoft, etc) it would
fit the slaveowner connotation of "cracker". But that's not the
use we're seeing.
Like you say, words can have different (even contradictory) meanings.
Bear
Friedrich Dominicus
> >
> That's an incorrect meaning, IMO. The word `hacker' has been around
> for a very long time (maybe the 1950s or 1960s), and the media's
> misdefinition began only recently (partly due to the book
_Hackers_!).
Don't know about what Hackers book you're talking. In Stephen Levys
book is is used in the sense, Hacker someone trying to understand
things and get them running. Well not always for legal purposes.
Friedrich
Michael Schuerig
You might call them dilettantes. Then they might even understand what
you're trying to say...
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig GPG Fingerprint
mailto:schu...@acm.org DA28 7DEB 5856 3365 BED9
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ 8365 0A30 545A 82D2 05D7