A Non-Programmer’s Apology | Hacker News Reader

A Non-Programmer’s Apology

aaronsw.com

86 pointsaraneae70 comments

This is from 2006, five years ago. Aaron Swartz's latest posts have been about decentralizing DNS, and his Twitter viewer.

I'm going to guess that political writing hasn't totally worked out either. I think it was plain from this piece that he thought writing was important, but it wasn't something that he was passionate about. If you're going to make a career of writing, you have to be unable to NOT write.

Anyway, when Aaron wrote that, he was 20, and now he's 25. At this point in his life he should be allowed to try and abandon different philosophies without censure. Actually, maybe we all should be. ;)

On the overall point, I think picking what you do based on "importance" is a fallacy. We don't often see it in comp-sci, but this happens all the time to graduates of law school or med school who have tremendous discipline but little self-knowledge. Almost a decade later they find they hate practicing law or that sick people just make them depressed.

Importance is good. But you also have to pick the thing you're suited for and that gives you some pleasure. Otherwise you will get burned out. I can't help feeling that this also had something to do with Aaron burning out on programming; instead of seeking things that he just likes, he's been drawn into doing "important" things, and judging his own work that way. I wonder if, given his history, it is hard to escape the feeling that he has to work at some world-class scale or do mega-important things. It must be hard to just try something with beginner's mind again.

I've been developing a theory for my life called "Decades". Do something for ten years then move on by turning the last decade into a hobby and the new one into a profession. It helps to realize that 5-10 years is the right amount of time for the vaunted 10 to 20,000 hours (50 weeks x 20-40 hours/week x 5-10 years). It helps me set expectations too when deciding what to work on: Is this something I would give five years of my life towards? If I enjoyed it enough would I give ten years or more?

That was the best outcome of graduate school for me. I worked for four years to get in and another four years to complete the degree. By the end of my post-doc (another two years) I had an appreciation of difficult problems with unknown boundaries. I also had an understanding of how my life would turn out if I exclusively followed that path.

I worry today that the focus on rapid iteration leaves aside the challenge of selecting important problems that can truly sustain us long-term. Projects are hard. Sticking with projects is even harder. For me, that has been a whole new lesson in my thirties as I try to develop technologies even as I learned that lesson during my twenties. I hope my forties can start out to be just as confusing as I slowly get a sense of the challenges around me. If not, I'm afraid I'll stagnate and die from the inside out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individuation Jungian theory of personality, career, social divergences at ~10 year marks, "mid-life" crisis'.

The political writing is going into a book, so I don't post it to the blog. That just leaves occasional side projects like the DNS stuff.

I owe you an apology. One, for psychoanalyzing you based on little evidence, and two, for suggesting you've disengaged from politics. (I've been looking at your blog and Twitter feed and other such things.)

I'm still not sure where you fall on the technologist / writer spectrum. But it seems to me that the world needs good hybrids more than it needs one or the other.

Aaron. I promise, it is all love with me and this comment. But, get over yourself. You are the 100 zillionth programmer to discover they are sick of programming and of the programming "scene". One programmer I knew became a roofer. Another became a trader. I know programmers who became doctors and lawyers. I haven't read Hardy, but you make him sound like a jerk.

Hardy was a whining, privileged bore. He had the time to do all that "maths" and watch all those cricket games because he didn't need to work for a living.

Do you say the same of all people who are paid as professors? For example, Knuth has time to do all that "algorithms", write books about Jesus, and give away software for free, because he doesn't need to work for a living.

As far as I can tell, Hardy was born to a fairly middle-class family (parents were schoolteachers), and got his job at Oxford because he was one of the best English mathematicians of his generation.

None of what I said was insulting or wrong.

Hardy didn't "work" for a living, to him mathematics was an obsessive hobby. He had a very strict routine; get up, walk, maths, watch cricket, tea, maths, eat, etc. He almost had the same daily routine as Kant, another bore, except the cricket.

Also, class has nothing to do with it. He was born into the imperial crown, and given his education, he was guaranteed a post in India or Africa and a "handsome life". The man was no Russel; he was an elitist who was indifferent to reaping the rewards of colonialism.

Knuth is very much a proletariat. No comparison.

Apart from your evidence-free assertion that there's "no comparison", I don't see much difference, except in personal attitudes (which isn't the point of my comparison). Knuth doesn't "work" for a living; to him computer science is an obsessive hobby. He has a very strict routine, which even involves using two computers, one with the internet and one without, and specific times set aside for answering correspondence versus writing versus doing other things. He's been working on TAOCP for decades because it's his obsession, not because it's a job. He can't imagine doing anything else, which is why he keeps writing it even in retirement. He has never taken a non-academic job in his life; he became a professor at age 25, and remained one until his retirement.

And really, "whining, privileged bore" wasn't intended as an insult?

Also, how does Russell fare better in your comparison? An aristocrat who wrote "In Praise of Idleness" while never having to work a day in his life? The archetype of the upper-class, socialist professor?

What are you going on about? They're completely different types of mathematicians. Knuth is a generalist/educator/computer scientist. He is not only one of the most prolific in the field, but also chairs journals and programs, develops software, does media appearances, maintains extensive correspondences, ALL while he teaches.

Hardy didn't have a fraction of these "distractions".

You think I'm dismissive of Hardy because of his academic career. I'm not. It's his colonial era, easy ranks and easier money, that I'm critical of.

"It's his colonial era, easy ranks and easier money, that I'm critical of."

Methinks somebody is jelly...

But really, why should we judge mathematicians by their social stature? Should we also judge Tony Hawk for his lack of sea-turtle related knowledge? It's completely beside the point, you're just looking for something to complain about.

Don't twist my words. I have read Hardy's work more carefully than any other author, having cut my teeth on the Course.

The colonial and classist attitude is pervasive and shapes his mathematical aesthetics.

So what?

> He has never taken a non-academic job in his life;

That's not quite right. He did at least consulting work outside of academia. As I quote him in Coders at Work: "For example, some of the best work I did for Burroughs Corporation was to debug their hardware designs. Their engineers would show me the specs for their computer and I would look at it and I would try to construct examples where they would be off by 1 or something. I got more than 200 bugs out of their B-5000–series machines before they went into production, although it had passed the simulators."

"Hardy didn't "work" for a living, to him mathematics was an obsessive hobby."

That applies to a good number of Silicon Valley programmers. Do they not need to "work" for a living, simply because they can get paid for their obsessive hobbies?

Silicon Valley programmers have to compete with a growing pool of domestic and global workforce.

Hardy was a Cambridge brat; people like him were born & bred for foreign posts. The closest thing today might be being born anglo, going through military academies all your life, then graduating West Point: you ARE guaranteed certain top positions for life.

You seem to have a lot of righteous anger on this topic.

Is that all you're contributing to the already long and offtopic discussion? really?

I was hoping you would use it as a lead-in to discuss why you're so angry about a man who died 65 years ago and who devoted his life to doing things that he thought would have no impact on the world.

Seriously, this is just baffling. If there wasn't a clear time-separation, I would go so far as to think that it reeked of personal grudge.

Would you call someone "a whining, privileged bore" to their face?

If they were in a position of power & privilege, yes. I called a foreign minister much worse things, only a few days ago, and he didn't like it (felt bad afterward though.)

Then of course it's an insult.

"I haven't read Hardy, but you make him sound like a jerk."

Hardy wrote of Srinivasa Ramanujan's untimely death that it was "not a great tragedy" that he died at the age of thirty-two, as he was already too old to do serious mathematics.

"A Mathematician's Apology" is the bitter rant of a man who only valued one thing in his life and had largely lost the ability to do it in his old age. If I had read it and believed it ten years ago, I never would have gone for my Ph.D. in mathematics.

>"A Mathematician's Apology" is the bitter rant of a man who only valued one thing in his life and had largely lost the ability to do it in his old age.

It's been a while since I've read it, but isn't it mostly a theory on what makes something beautiful and worth doing? It's always struck me as being probably one of the most important essays of all time.

I find it interesting that what Aaron and you took from the essay has essentially zero overlap with my take.

I thought AMA was incredibly sad. Both for what he thought was important, what he didn't, and how that changed. As a huge baseball fan, I also loved that the one constant were the daily scores.

"Mostly a theory...": I agree it's that too.

I think there is cause to read it and reflect on your life and say "hey, I should value more than one thing in life".

I think devoting your life to one thing is the temptation of a life in academia, but it also is a path to bitterness.

Thomas, it's your point I'd like to hear from more hackers. I went through a similar period years ago, slowly discovering that I hated programming, and certainly had no idea it was ubiquitous. I had just started a new company and it was the worst possible time to learn it. Moreso, programming from boyhood (whizkid!) made it sewn up in my identity. Crisis!

Management was an escape for a while. And luckily it disappeared, like teenage allergies. Now I can't wait to hack in the mornings. But at the time, it was devastating.

On a related point, all the folks I know who exited programming for other careers, were lesser programmers. I certainly didn't want to make that self-discovery. :)

Around here we call it "doing an Office Space".

Of course it's sometimes unclear if it instead means (or also includes?) burning down the building....

http://amathematiciansapology.pandamian.com/

I thought HN was supposed to be a place where people are nice to each other and voice opinions on subjects that they know something about. So why has Thomas's snide and condescending post ending with him boasting that he hasn't read Hardy been voted up?

I really think you missed the point of my comment, Jon Pincus.

I enjoyed watching 'mahmud and 'delirium go at it over the merits of Hardy, but my comment wasn't judging him and didn't ask for that debate.

I don't know what the point of your comment was -- I'm not a mind reader. Words like "get over it" and saying that he was the zillionth person to say that sure sound judgmental to me. Plus, as you discovered after my comment, you hadn't even taken the time to notice that it was from 2006 and wouldn't have written it if you did.

And yet you still got voted up. Why do you think that is?

Thbthbthbthbthbhtbthhtbhtt.

I would not have written this comment had I noticed the post was from 2006. Sorry, Aaron.

At first it was small steps — discussing programming instead of doing it, then discussing things for programmers, and then discussing other topics altogether.

This is the trap of "programmers' communities", including HN. For many years, I was a programmer by day and a civilian by night. There really wasn't much social life for programmers together. Then when I starting socializing with other programmers over beer, coffee, or on-line, my first thought was, "Finally! A group I belong in." My second thought was, "Be careful. Talking about work is not work. Have fun, but get back to work!"

...the only responsible way to live my life would be to do something that would only be done by someone who knew this thing...

That's the main reason I'm a programmer: What I write is needed and doesn't already exist. If it did, I'd probably be doing something else.

...it went amazingly well and I have since become convinced that I’m a pretty good programmer

Here's a dirty little elusive secret: It doesn't matter how good a programmer you are. All that really matters is whether or not what you build is good enough.

I don’t want to be a programmer. When I look at programming books, I am more tempted to mock them than to read them. When I go to programmer conferences, I’d rather skip out and talk politics than programming. And writing code, although it can be enjoyable, is hardly something I want to spend my life doing.

LookingAtProgrammingBooks != Programming

GoingToProgrammingConferences != Programming

WritingCode != Programming (well maybe a little)

My definition of Programming: "rejoicing in someone else's delivery of value with something I built for them". With a definition like that, I can't imagine doing anything else. I bet if we all focused on that, those many speed bumps wouldn't seem so high.

The writing is too important, the programming too unenjoyable.

You found your voice in prose, not syntax. Many spend their entire lives searching for their voice without ever finding it. Good for you.

"rejoicing in someone else's delivery of value with something I built for them"

I think that's kind of a weird definition of programming. I don't know why it rubs me the wrong way. I find tremendous joy in writing and reading code which does something cool, even if those somethings don't provide value to the outside world.

Of course, programming means different things for different people, and there's nothing inherently wrong with your definition. I just think it's a bit broad and maybe misses the mark for a lot of people who really enjoy programming itself, rather than as a means to some end.

"I think that's kind of a weird definition of programming. I don't know why it rubs me the wrong way."

Because a marketer can use it with a straight face to say that when they created a successful marketing campaign they have "programmed". I think you still need some concept of coding in there, even though I would also agree some idea of value delivered to somebody is also important.

I also definitely think delivering value is important! But wrapping that up in definition of programming itself is mixing things up. I think it makes more sense to include delivering value as part of the bigger context of programming as a career and a job.

For me at least "programming" refers to coding whilst "development" refers to the process of adding value _using_ "programming".

It's more a general philosophy of life. The argument is that, in the end, you will be more satisfied by creating value for other people than if you only do things you find interesting or enjoyable in the moment, but do not impact other people's lives.

Of course, that's not to say you have to choose only one. Google seems an exercise of doing really interesting things that also have a massive influence on people's lives.

I was never arguing against that general philosophy, just pointing out that I thought it was strange to include it in a definition of programming.

My favorite kind of programming is when I solve an esoteric little problem that no one else will ever care about but makes exactly one person's life better. Mine!

Its not that I'm being selfish or anything, its about rejoicing in the fact that I had the skill to do it and better my own lot, instead of sitting there helpless, wishing there was someone who could do it for me.

> "I fear, this decision deprives society of one great programmer in favor of one mediocre writer...And for that, I apologize."

Please, the world will not tumble, it wont even remember you (except those of us that loved using web.py :P). There are many others just like you, please get over yourself. This post was hard to read without context. It must have been intended for someone specifically who depended on him because if he is really talking to the world and apologizing to the world, man is that an ego. Narcissism much?

It's meant to be in the style of A Mathematician's Apology, which is an essay that explains the motivations of a mathematician.

> Narcissism much?

It's not narcissism at all. It's a frank look at a programmer struggling with his own understanding of his craft. Narcissism is something that is self-centered and smug -- this is none of those, and it's a frank look at his failings and his greatness.

> There are many others just like you, please get over yourself.

Of course there are! That's who he's writing it for, and there are many, many more who aren't like him and that's also who he's writing it for.

> This post was hard to read without context.

The context for this post is: The writer is a (great?) programmer and the reader possesses, or wants to possess, some understanding of human beings that is not derived from TV and comic books.

Whereas your comment putting you as Judge and Jury, and in position to speak on what the world will remember isn't at all ego filled or self important.

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

Just do what you love. Period. I've had times in my life when that was programming - and it got me a long way, and I loved doing it while I did it. Then I felt the challenge of learning how to build a business. So I made a choice, and stepped away from coding, and started pursuing my passion of building businesses. There's nothing wrong with your passions changing - think of it as opportunities to learn new skills.

One of the funny (paradoxical?) results of this is that I've had my eyes opened on things that I'd love to code. So, I've gotten passionate about programming again. Ain't life funny?

You don't need to apologize for being honest and self-examining - you only need to apologize if you aren't following your love and passion.

"you only need to apologize if you aren't following your love and passion."

Or maybe you are trying to stay alive in a war torn country, or figure out how to keep your family from starving.

Let's all keep in mind that the possibility of "following your love and passion" is only available to a privileged minority of human beings on this planet.

(Not directed specifically at you, but to point out an unstated premise behind the article and many of the comments here.)

Of course, that's completely true - and all the more reason to follow your love and passion if you happen to be privileged by luck of birth, family, and genetics. I think that this is true of many HN readers and certainly describes me. I'm incredibly grateful for being born into that lucky circumstance.

And I don't mean to put down people who can't do that because they have to figure out how to stay alive in a war torn country, or figure out how to keep your family from starving.

Thanks for your excellent point.

A Mathematician's Apology is a must read as a great insight into opportunity costs and life choices. I found it by accident but it left a deep groove in my psyche.

http://web.njit.edu/~akansu/PAPERS/GHHardy-AMathematiciansAp...

It is usually a pleasure to be able to do something well. But I have come to believe society is not "owed" one's (supposed) "best" talents. I have come to believe that the common social message that "if you are good at something, it is a Gift and you have an obligation to better society with your Gifts" is incredibly sick. I think it does enormous harm, to both individuals and society.

Who decides "best"?

As for responsibility, Ricardo's comparative advantage says you should do what you are best at (even if it's crappy compared to everyone else):

England may be so circumstanced, that to produce the cloth may require the labour of 100 men for one year; and if she attempted to make the wine, it might require the labour of 120 men for the same time. England would therefore find it her interest to import wine, and to purchase it by the exportation of cloth.

To produce the wine in Portugal, might require only the labour of 80 men for one year, and to produce the cloth in the same country, might require the labour of 90 men for the same time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine in exchange for cloth. This exchange might even take place, notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be produced there with less labour than in England. http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/readings/ricardo7.html [I know this from The Rational Optimist]

And, as Aaron concludes, you get better at whatever you do. So you might as well do what you love. Most of success is staying the distance - which is easier if you love it. The thing is, most people happen to "love" what they do well at; which I suspect means that it's not intrinsic love, but it makes us feel good about ourselves (a sense of mastery, objectively confirmed by others).

You can turn this around by lowering your standards, so that you feel good about any level of success - the smallest possible measurable improvement. This happens automatically in school - you're only competing with your peers, who (let's face it) are pretty crappy compared with ordinary adults. Yet you feel good if you do well compared with them. See also the time of year of birth, of hockey players: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/08120...

I find Aaron's essays pretty difficult to read because they tend to come straight from the navel.

On the other hand, he's a young guy. When I look at stuff I wrote when I was in my early twenties, I was pretty far up my own asshole too. Now that I'm in my late twenties, of course, I'm a worldly old sage who has a keen sense of perspective on the world and my place in it. :P

I'm interested to see if Aaron gets some perspective too, or if perhaps his very young success will have permanently warped his worldview.

In my defense, it was written 5 years ago, when I was an even younger guy. Technically, I think I was still a teenager.

"A man who is always asking ‘Is what I do worthwhile?’ and ‘Am I the right person to do it?’ will always be ineffective himself and a discouragement to others."

I disagree.

Such a person might have the makings of an outstanding leader. For example, the company founder who understands her weaknesses and recruits outstanding people to do those things for her company probably has a better chance of success. If she can also frequently ask "is what we are doing worthwhile?" the company can quickly adapt to the market and other changing circumstances.

Totally relate. What I've always loved about programming was the satisfaction of creating something that people like and find useful, the craft of great design and implementation, and the time I spent in flow. After lot of learning and practice, I've gotten my writing skills to that point as well -- which means a lot less time trying to understand obscure error messages, fighting tools, working around bugs.

So I still enjoy programming when I do it, but spend much much more time writing these days. And I'm a lot happier, too!

My understanding is that there is no innate talent for programming, math, art, or anything else. It's just a question of how hard you're willing to work at learning how to become the best. (This is the thesis of Talent is Overrated, which I highly recommend. Alternatively you can Google "deliberate practice".)

The kicker is that even if this isn't true, people who live their life as if it is will be better off.

One could argue that the extreme level of interest in a field you must exhibit to practice gruelingly hard is a form of talent in itself, or that it stems from some kernel of innate talent.

There's bound to be a reason why some super intelligent people are deeply interesting in programming or maths and excel at it, while other people of the same level of intelligence simply don't and instead do something completely different with their lives.

Oh I definitely agree here. Great programmers only got good because they love to geek out about it. That's not something that can be trained. Given that the OP shouldn't feel bad for not wanting to program, he should spend his time following his passion!

>My understanding is that there is no innate talent for programming, math, art, or anything else.

Your understanding is completely wrong. Many, many genes have been linked with specific talents.

Music: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1209186.stm

Athletics: https://www.23andme.com/health/Muscle-Performance/

Art: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article880132.ec...

Also this from a geneticist: http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=91

I realize claims that there is no such thing as talent are very popular and will sell a lot of books. That doesn't make them true. I'm afraid the way things are and the way people wish they were are not the same.

Let's take this point by point.

Athletics: There are genetic components for physical abilities, this is well established in the literature.

Art: Of course our cognitive abilities that set us apart from other species is genetic. The article you link to makes no claim as to whether the best artists are better than the rest of us because of their genes.

Music: There's a gene which makes 1 in 20 tone deaf and it looks like perfect pitch has a basis in genetics (either way, it's something you can't train). Far, far more important to being a successful musician are three components (which the article cites): support from parents and mentors, instruction by experts, and dedicated practice. Variation between ability in people comes overwhelmingly from those three things and genetics plays a tiny role, if any at all.

I think the overarching point is that if the OP prefers politics to programming, then he shouldn't feel sorry for wasting his programming "talent", as there's no such thing. He can be just as good at politics if he's willing to put in the time to learn.

Just to take the musician example:

>far more important to being a successful musician are three components

I agree that these are necessary traits to be a successful musician, but they are not sufficient. There are (apparently) many "tiger moms" out there pushing their children with the same amount of relentlessness to excel with a musical instrument. Yet only a handful of them play at Carnagie Hall at 10. I find it hard to believe that those that achieve that level of proficiency were simply "pushed harder" by their parents. This is a poor explanation for the outcome. A better explanation is that the intersection of tiger mom's and genetic aptitude for music is extremely rare.

>then he shouldn't feel sorry for wasting his programming "talent", as there's no such thing

Again, I don't think the evidence bares this out. Taking myself as an example: I've always taken to math extremely easily. I always "got" it with little effort. This even through periods where I cared none about schoolwork and thus didn't do any of it (my report cards reflected this). It was the same with programming. I took my first class in high school and it came extremely easy to me and I've excelled at it ever since. I find it very hard to believe that talent isn't a huge factor in these things.

I suspect the only reason people concede athletic differences is that they are far easier to spot. The actual amount of evidence isn't that different than it is for some other pursuits.

The link about art wasn't talking about other species. It was about the development of our species. Genetic shift doesn't happen to an entire species at once, it's a gradual shifting of allele frequencies. If you admit that genetic differences make us more capable artists than our ancestors, it's difficult to defend the claim that all current and ongoing variation in people is irrelevant to artistic skill.

>"Far, far more important to being a successful musician are three components (which the article cites): support from parents and mentors, instruction by experts, and dedicated practice. Variation between ability in people comes overwhelmingly from those three things and genetics plays a tiny role, if any at all."

This is just utter bullshit and it convinces me you have no direct experience with the field. I grew up in a family of professional musicians and have seen overwhelming evidence that nurture and nature both have significant effects. For a heartbreaking personal example see my comment on another thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2291295

"deprives society of one great programmer in favor of one mediocre writer"

I'd say since you care about writing you will eventually excel at it. Of course, society will be the ultimate judge. But you have passion for writing and that matters more than society's perception about what you should be doing.

Wank on, you crazy diamond.

It would have been a much better article if he did it with HTML 5 and Canvas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com