Dabblers and Blowhards | Hacker News Reader

Dabblers and Blowhards

idlewords.com

58 pointsnivethan15 comments

I've had many artists explain to me that they are in fact engineers - there is much calculation, chemistry, optics and then some - but I'd say that programmers are more like lawyers than engineers. Sorry, but it's symbolic work, not physical work. "Software Engineer" is just a title someone gives you and means no more than "Software Developer" or "Computer Programmer" ever did.

Of course lawyers and "real" engineers have to get professional certification that can be legally revoked; programmers and artists don't.

And the documentary Tim's Vermeer is pretty good.

Given how much programming is gluing together APIs and pre-built SDKs and navigating around the artificial restrictions imposed by the creators of those, I'd say we're a lot like bureaucrats.

I don't know why so many people on HN think that all "real" engineers are required to get professionally certified by some professional cult society, but is is flatly false.

In the United States, engineering drawings or reports submitted to local, state, or federal government agencies typically have to be stamped by a licensed professional engineer. You'll sometimes see similar requirements in private industry as well.

Around here (and maybe in all of the United States?) you don't have to be a PE to call yourself an engineer, but I think in some countries you do. I personally reserve the expression "real engineer" for PE's who can stamp drawings and have the license and insurance to back it up.

But, hey. What do I know? I'm probably overpaying by going to a "real" dentist.

The vast majority of electrical engineers in the US are not PEs. I think they’re still engineers.

Disclaimer: I’m an EE as well as a programmer.

Always in awe of process people even when insolent. ;)

In my experience, people who throw around the H word these days are the same lamers you get stuck beside in a plane for 8 hours... talking at you about bitcoin. Talented artists can learn programs with ease, but software guys usually suck at making content that sells.

This guy is far more interesting, and perhaps an exception:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBCYvoC4muc&t=90s

Nice! That guy is clearly an artist in more ways than one…

> But nothing about what they [Hackers, Painters] make, the purposes it serves, or how they go about doing it is in any way similar.

This is actually untrue. There is a lot of overlap in how hackers and painters get better. For example, both of them need to separate themselves from their work, and approach the craft with humility, so that they can maintain an open mind, listen to criticism, and find opportunities to make their work better over time.

For more examples of how they are similar, try this exercise. Watch this brief and amazing 10 minute video from one of my favorite painters, and listen to his advice on how to be a better artist. You'll find that every single one of his suggestions are equally applicable to how to become a better software engineer. One other thing about this video that also applies to code: his painting starts off ugly, but in the end, it's beautiful.

Check this video, and see if you agree that it all applies equally well to being a good programmer: "5 Things I Wish I Knew as a BEGINNER ARTIST" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEq6BfEY0ak

> For example, both of them need to separate themselves from their work, and approach the craft with humility, so that they can maintain an open mind, listen to criticism, and find opportunities to make their work better over time.

That applies to ≈everything. If I didn't know the context, I'd assume you were talking about sports.

When you are going to get all philosophical, why not start off with some definitions rather than waffle later on.

Hacker (-a, -um): "breaks into computer systems", cf cracker. Painter (-lol, -rofl): "Paints walls to order with a roller", cf tosher.

I am of course being somewhat silly with my definitions but both are valid and unlikely to be what the authors of the article and my parent comment have in mind. ... or are they?

When this sentence hoves into view:

"You can safely replace "painters" in this response with "poets", "composers", "pastry chefs" or "auto mechanics" with no loss of meaning or insight."

... the author's mind has clearly wandered a bit off course. An auto mechanic can very well be described as a "creative" too. I'm well aware that mechanics perform some pretty fancy feats involving imagination and creative use of tools and materials every day.

I think that what this sort of essay fundamentally gets wrong is starting off with a lack of definitions and wooly notions of trade/profession/occupation/interests. There may be some truths in certain passages when considered on their own but frankly it starts off without basic foundations. Any civil or structural engineer will happily tell you what happens to an edifice without sufficient foundations.

The definitions of painter and hacker that are presented later are quite offensive. "Painters apply colored goo to cloth using animal hairs tied to a stick." - oh dear!

A final flourish and sign off from the article: "But you, sir, are no painter."

... to which I can only respond: "get a grip matey". I get the thesis as presented but the close mindedness exhibited reminds me of my grandad's gin traps - inhumane and demonstrating a lack of imagination of how to deal with a problem. Minimal signs of imagination and creativity noted.

What on earth is wrong with: "What hackers and painters have in common is that they're both makers."? (quote from "Hackers and Painters")

At least we are all thinking and engaging and for me that's the important thing.

These definitions that the author laid out seem either intentionally intended as strawman or simplified beyond usefulness:

* Computer programmers cause a machine to perform a sequence of transformations on electronically stored data.

* Painters apply colored goo to cloth using animal hairs tied to a stick.

Money corrupts people, that is for sure.

Love of money, to be specific. Asceticism is a thing.

You don't need to be an ascetic. You just need not identify with or get attached to your money as if it were an end in itself or some talisman. Recall the biblical verses about it being easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven. Those passages aren't about being rich per se. Indeed, that same criticism is directed at the others listening who aren't rich. It is a spiritual condition that can afflict the poor as much as the rich.

So hackers are nothing like painters, because only painters get laid?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com