Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hackers & Painters

Posted by timothy on from the why-cats-paint dept.

honestpuck writes "Paul Graham has delivered final proof that he is a marvelous essayist with his volume of fairly diverse writings, Hackers & Painters. I first came across his writing with his article, "A Plan For Spam," on using Bayesian filtering to block spam and found it a well written and informative technical article. I next came across him some time later when he wrote an essay on his web site entitled "Hackers & Painters," and once again it was well written, informative and (more importantly for an essayist) thought provoking. I was excited to hear he had published a volume of writing and pleased when O'Reilly sent me a copy, despite my pleas that I did not have time to review it." He found time, to your benefit; read on for honestpuck's review. 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.

32 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. A good trait for writers by xerph · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I found myself disagreeing with him often while reading the book, though every time I did I found his argument compelling.

    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.

    1. Re:A good trait for writers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      Am I the only one who found that quote slightly ironic?

  2. Wittgenstein? by calebb · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm sure you mean "Wittenberg." That's where Luther nailed his 95 theses at the beginning of the reformation... Caleb

    1. Re:Wittgenstein? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ROFL! A malaprop worthy of Calvin & Hegel.

    2. Re:Wittgenstein? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Forget that:

      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 to the church door is itself apocryphal. The one supposed witness wasn't even at Wittenberg until the year after. Luther himself never mentions nailing anything.

      Perhaps that is why honestpuck writes reviews and not books himself.

      Critics search for ages for the wrong word, which, to give them credit, they eventually find. --Peter Ustinov

  3. Wittgenstein? by Otter · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    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.

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  4. Paul Graham links mentioned above all in one place by Richard_L_James · · Score: 5, Informative


  5. Paul Graham's politics by ESR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wrote the intro for Paul's book and he's a good friend of mine. The reviewer is wrong on one point: Paul's politics are not "conservative" or "right-wing". Like me, he is a libertarian who stands outside the left/right spectrum and wants as little as possible to do with those who inhabit it.

    --
    >>esr>>
    1. Re:Paul Graham's politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Naw, libertarians are republicans who smoke pot.

    2. Re:Paul Graham's politics by pclminion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eric, you don't stand outside the spectrum, the spectrum is simply multi-dimensional, and you've stepped off the axis which runs through "liberal" and "conservative."

    3. Re:Paul Graham's politics by Mr+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does it make the labels wrong simply because that's not the label he chose himself?

      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.

      --
      Never confuse volume with power.
    4. Re:Paul Graham's politics by jdavidb · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
    5. Re:Paul Graham's politics by swb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pre-civil rights, the people you consider to be culutral conservatives (middle-to-lower class, predominantely Southern and Western religious whites) were predmoninately Democrats based on their economic and labor affiliiation.

      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 with the Republican party we have today.

    6. Re:Paul Graham's politics by bugbear · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've never been sure myself whether I was liberal or conservative. I think some things I wouldn't dare say out loud in front of a group of liberals, and others I wouldn't dare say out loud in from of a group of conservatives. It's a tossup which category of thoughts is bigger.

      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.

    7. Re:Paul Graham's politics by ESR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, my pre-libertarian background was as a
      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.

      --
      >>esr>>
    8. Re:Paul Graham's politics by danharan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Check out the political compass.

      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.

      --
      Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
    9. Re:Paul Graham's politics by jonnystiph · · Score: 3, Funny

      Naw, libertarians are republicans who smoke pot.

      AND eat children, we also eat small children. I wanted to make sure that was noted.

      --

      If we don't make light of everything, we are just stumbling in the dark - Blank

    10. Re:Paul Graham's politics by robmyers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Libertarianism is right-wing apologetics. This is very clear from Graham's opinions on the distribution of wealth. Wanting nothing to do with left/right politics is a hallmark of the right, and libertarianism certainly isn't left wing in many of its tenets.

    11. Re:Paul Graham's politics by Chris+Z.+Wintrowski · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Like me, he is a libertarian ..."


      At last, an explanation for the pages of drivel pg recently published as "What You Can't Say". 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, and libertarianism, which chooses the rights of the individual over the rights of the collective whole, is an apt example of how pg's much-advised heretical thought ends in useless, unoriginal crackpottery. Slowly, a heretic's monomania warps his mind, preventing him from seeing things in a universal sense, according to the whole, and I think it highly unfortunate to see pg slowly manifest these symptoms.


      In the end, as G. K. Chesterton said, there is nothing more boring than a heretic, and pg has become exceedingly boring of late (of course, not quite to the standard of Mr. E.S. Raymond or Mr. R.M. Stallman), as evidenced by the content of his essays, and the time he is wasting by implementing another pointless dialect of ANSI Common Lisp. It would certainly benefit us all if there were at least one person with voice in the open source world who thought in a more catholic manner; then perhaps we would see some progress instead of good people being wasted, thinking unoriginal thoughts, and re-implementing old ideas.

      --
      - Chris Z. Wintrowski -
      [ Site ]
  6. Re:Hmmm... by linzeal · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, he was an underwater bassist for an alternate history rock band head by Wagner and Cain (of Cain and Able) that died in a plane wreck going to a gig in Dayton Ohio in 1963. Of course, he was a philosopher, check out some of his thoughts.

    --
    An Education is the Font of All Liberty
  7. Value added? by GuyMannDude · · 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

    --
    watch this
    1. Re:Value added? by Tellarin · · Score: 5, Informative

      The following essays are available at http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html

      *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/c h02.pdf)
      *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.

      --
      -- SouNerd.com
    2. Re:Value added? by bugbear · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'd guess about 30% of the text in the book is new. The essays that are already on the web have been rewritten too-- some quite extensively, some just tightened up a bit.

    3. Re:Value added? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Informative
      Here's a start, from the PDF table of contents, to which the reviewer linked, and from Graham's web site.

      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.

      --
      See what I've been reading.
  8. A nice quote... by tcopeland · · Score: 3, Interesting
    ...from his LISP quotes page:

    "I suppose I should learn Lisp, but it seems so foreign."

    - Paul Graham, Nov 1983

    Nice to see he remembers how he felt about LISP at first; gives me hope for my own LISP aspirations :-)
    --
    The Army reading list
  9. Re:Is this book about JeffK? by linzeal · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A lot of artists are going digital, including yours truly.

    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 out of old computers or laptops.

    --
    An Education is the Font of All Liberty
  10. FUD? by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  11. philosophy nerd humor by scubacuda · · Score: 2, Funny
    I'm sure you mean "Wittenberg." That's where Luther nailed his 95 theses at the beginning of the reformation...

    HELP! This LISP language is a cage! Get me out!

  12. quote from Hackers and Painters by t1m0r4n · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just read the "Hackers and Painters" essay. A note that struck me as odd is this, "The influence of fashion is not nearly so great in hacking as it is in painting." I suspect the influence of fashion is nearly equal (regardless of interpretation).

    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.

  13. "Doubt" and "uncertainty" are fallacies by Kismet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I also disagree with the reviewer's assessment on this point.

    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.

    1. Re:"Doubt" and "uncertainty" are fallacies by Kismet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your learning is superficial and you are intellectually arrogant. The tenets of effective argument have been well established and are published; you may deny these if you wish.

      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. They do not need qualifiers on them.

      When a conclusion is derived from reason and logic, this conclusion induces belief in those who might consider it. In argument form, such belief is most effectively presented as fact.

  14. Re:Could someone explain a little bit please by MourningBlade · · Score: 3, 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.