but you didn't fool me. I'm not quite that senile to have forgotten that Home Directory on CSV had a pointer stored away in my failing memory system. When I checked I found it pointed to the Linux Journal article where it was published a year ago.
Well weasels may or may not be weaselly (which of course has no relation to the unixy and linuxy conversation of earlier today) but there's sure no doubt that squirrels are without a doubt the squirreliest creatures around.
The problem is not the razor sharp analysis of this weighty thinker (and lazy reader I'm sure) but that someone actually thought his sub-sophomoric comments were funny and modded it up to 4.
I keep my./ set to see only rankings of 4 or higher. I had hoped that that would at least weed out this type of idiotic comment. More and more it seems that most of the comments on book reviews are by people who haven't read the book or by people who mod those comments up not caring whether someone has read the book or not.
Excuse me while I go readjust my preferences to 6. It's the only escape from this I'm afraid.
By the way I'm 1/4 through the book and have found it quite enlightening. I don't know anything about ESR personally. But I do know that I'm enjoying reading the book enormously.
Couldn't agree more. To those of us who are interested in learning something in depth you need books and the slow method of digestion that they require. The internet is fast but fast learning is only one type of learning, and one that I think is highly overrated.
I could go on and on about this but I'm sure it's all been said before. In many ways it reminds me of the justification that newspapers must now make for their existence, since they're obviously not that important for breaking news. They give you digested information and in a familiar format. Their bet, and one I'm sure that they're wondering about right now, is that there are enough people out there who want to read information that has been considered and edited by someone they trust. I hope that they're correct in their bet, partly because I work at a newspaper but more because I think that type of information is vital to any substantial civilization.
From the moment that I first heard the godforsaken phrase "surf the net" I really wondered how that could be so appealing to people. Yes it is fantastic for finding certain bits of information. And often those bits will lead you to other bits that MIGHT give you a somewhat full picture. But there is already something that is designed to give you a full picture and often does: THE BOOK!
Long live the book and the people who appreciate it.
Yep, it's still the text editor I use most when I'm on Windows. It just does what it's supposed to without any mess or annoyance. Too bad no one wanted to pay for that type of software!!
In fact it's probably my most used program, outside of a browser, since I use it for most coding.
Of course when I'm on the 'nixes nothing beats vi!
I've always found the auto mechanic analogy is the best one for what I do as well. The only problem is that though I realize it the people who I work for often do not. So even though I know that they wouldn't take their expensive car to a cheap mechanic I don't think that most of them (both users and management) see their IT resources in the same way as they see their cars.
Coming from a background in fine-art painting, which is by far less employable than IT, I've realized that I'm really more of a crafstman than an artist, though I do think that at one time they were much more closely intertwined. I do any number of things, from extremely basic Windows desktop support questions and laptop support questions, to Unix server questions, to shell scripting, web scripting, jsp, java, perl scripting, and ArcIMS development. Though I probably once thought of this as more artist than craftsman I now realize that it's the opposite and I'm happy with it. The good craftsman is an artist in his/her own right and I'm quite happy with that. And there's the satisfaction of a job well done, as in any craft.
Again like a craftsman, good craftsman cost a lot. If you've had a bad carpenter do a sloppy job on your kitchen renovation, or a plumber charge you a fortune for something that doesn't work you soon realize that it's worth paying more to get the job done right. I don't think that getting the job done right is really a matter of efficiency though I suppose some professional craftsman might say otherwise, i.e. they have to do a good job but they also have to do it with some speed in order to make a decent living.
Oh well, I'm rambling so I'll stop. But I did want to say that I think the mechanic analogy is an apt one.
What I notice in the article and in the responses is that we have one more example of piss-poor hybridization. Though a few readers liked the idea most of them found the CD about as useful as the AOL CDs that used to seem to appear out of the ether.
What's sad but telling about this is that is looks like one more lame-brained, half-hearted, probably cheaply implemented, attempt to hybridize, or as I'm sure they PR people would say, synergize, two media. But it's like tacking Greek columns on a log cabin. It just doesn't work. The current CD adds nothing really useful to the newspaper. So eventually the newspaper will probably decide that it's not been as successful as they'd like and not worth the effort and cost to make it really successful. And the few readers who do find it useful will probably give up as it slowly degenerates due to cost-cutting.
This is not at all to say that I think that it couldn't work. It just seems to me that most people aren't willing to spend the time and money to really think through a winning hybridization that both makes money for the newspaper and gives readers something that they really want. I have to think of Google in relation to this. They came up with something that soon became indispensible to most people. It's possible that something similar could be done with newspapers and other media. It's just that no one's had the vision and resources to make it work.
Ah well. I guess you can't get a Google every day.
You know you really think that most people must have nothing to do. Whenever they get a new tool, whether circular saw, programming language or exotic spice, they just have to use it everywhere. I guess that's partially just human nature: it's fun to experiment with something new. But they must really not have any serious need for it or they'd just use it for what they needed.
In my experience I'd say more than 50% of all tool users use them for fun/kicks, not because they have a pressing task to do with them.
I know this is way off point. I guess I just don't have anything important to do and slashdot is a fun tool............
BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT, just before I read your post demanding that it be knocked down I was thinking that someone should start a new subject on "Learning programming through books - pros and cons" or some such thing. I keep noticing these statements from people who claim that they don't need to read books, and seem to be proud of it. Personally I think that's nuts. But there certainly do seem to be a number of people of that persuasion. Much of it seems like some sort of youthful bravado but I wonder if there's also some truth to it. I guess I'm wondering if there is a change and that there is a growing number of accomplished programmers who really don't read books. I'm happy not to be one of them but I still find it an interesting question. So, for prompting this totally unrelated post, I unofficially demote your first post to 2.0.
I think you're right about confusing obfuscation with programming machismo. But I have to say that no regular expression I've ever seen (except perhaps for last page of Mastering Regular Expressions) has been as baffling as something like $foo{$bar}{$foo2}. For me references and dereferencing and dereferencing shortcuts are the least readable elements of perl.
But perl's mindset from what I can tell is power through brevity and flexibility. Going from it to Java is tortuous. So many words to type!!! But they both have their strengths. No doubt you're right that Perl code can be made readable if you make an effort. But I think readability has never been something that the Perl community has seemed to value, at least not as much as it should. So for anyone who's never learned it, it just seems needlessly and maybe purposefully obscure and hard to read. Making readable Perl has just never seemed cool to perl community from what I can see.
I don't say this as a criticism. I really like Perl and always have. But it may take a certain type of mind to love and master its brevity.
How bout "has anyone started both books?" Based on that comparison I'd say I've gotten farther in this book than I ever did in Damian Conway's book (which I had really high expectations for based on reviews). In fact I think I started the Conway book more than once but never got more than 1/4 of the way through it. I'm halfway through this one now and have no doubts that I'll complete it.
Of course then I might go back and reread the Conway just to see if it makes more sense.
So for me I prefer this one. But that's just me. I liked the Conway book but it just got too dense too quick.
and it's slow going, but I've sure learned a lot. Now maybe I'm dense but I don't think that references, anonymous hashes, references, subroutines are all that easily understood. In fact you can accomplish a whole hell of a lot in Perl without understanding them. But for anyone wanting to make the jump to larger more complex programs you really need to understand them. I'm just finishing the references section (first half) and still have the objects section ahead of me. I've read the tutorial on objects before and at first glance this book looks similar to it. But I didn't get as far in the tutorial as I would have liked, I think because I didn't understand references as well as I should. With the solid foundation that this book gives I think that I'll get a whole lot more out of the objects section, even if it more or less duplicates the tutorial (which I doubt).
So, half way through, I give it two thumbs up. My Perl programming has just gotten a lot more sophisticated. Maybe I was dense to begin with but any step up is something I'm happy about.
As far as those nutty complaints about O'Reilly lingering at the bottom of this thread all I can say is that they've found their proper place.
I tried to read the old version of Learning Java, called Exploring Java, and then the 2000 version of Learning Java. Both times I just got bogged down and quit.
I can understand the dilemma that you mention in covering such a huge topic as Java. I've read many, many O'Reilly books and many of them manage to do a wonderful job of clearly exlaining very complex subjects. Though they can require concentration it often pays off. But I didn't find that it helped me with these books, even though I read rave reviews of them elsewhere. My final conclusion on them was that they really were a bit too advanced for me, even though they were supposed to be introductions.
The books that got me to understand Java and eventually get SCJP certification were Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java (I believe I read both first and second editions), and probably most importantly: A Programmer's Guide to Java Certification by Mughal and Rasmussen. Though neither of these are all that simple they seem to begin from a theoretical viewpoint that I found myself comfortable with.
I suppose this all goes to prove that, just as the authors of Head First Java state, people learn in different ways. For me I've found that a theoretical bent is always what I like best. Others will find Learning Java perfect for them and others will find the same with Head First Java.
Like movie reviews I guess you just have to learn whose opinion you've learned to trust over time then follow their recommendations.
Well I was about to say that I agreed with you. Then I thought about all the expensive SUVs that pass me by each day, the McMansions that litter good farmland and all the other signs of affluence out of control and I think yes there is some correcting that will be done. BUT I'd be surprised if it will affect the McMansion owners. It will probably affect middle class people in IT and other such fields like myself, just as it has the rust belt workers.
But will it affect the really wealthy who are probably gaining the most from seeing jobs move out of the country. No I doubt it. So for that reason I have to disagree with you.
I really find it hard to believe that no one seems to think that everything should be subservient to the growth of capitalism. The country wasn't founded with that intent. But now everyone seems to accept it, even when the cost is their own job. Very odd. I've never really studied protectionism and how it's succeeded or failed in the past. But I do see what's happening and will continue to happen with globalization and I know that's a failure and will only get worse.
You know this whole Munich article has made me smile. But getting to see the dance again really tops it off!
Can't see the forest for the axe-grinding
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
So can anyone put all this into perspective, assuming that it is correct that there is some similarity of code?
So far all I've seen written in response is axe-grinding of some sort or another. I'm even sympathetic to it but it's boring as hell. What I'd really like to know are the possible ramifications of some code being similar.
Is it minor code that only is important if someone is trying to sue in order to save their own company from obsolescence? Is it major code? Is there no code? What if it was major code? How much? I assume that this doesn't refer to the kernel but other parts. It would be nice to get some perspective on it. This of course assumes that SCO has been consistent enough for anyone to be able to put into perspective.
Actually that's too good a word for it. They're ponderous, conservative tomes that don't have an inkling of suspense. The plot line is evident from page one. I hadn't read one in years and recently picked up one of the newer ones about the US joining with Russia to combat China. It was all I could do to finish it, and believe me I didn't feel that I got any reward for doing so.
I guess like most editors/coaches or whatever, they don't dare argue with success, no matter how lacking in quality that success is.
Well I think you're right, great art quite often has been popular art as well. Only time has shown it to be great art because it outlived the popularity of its day. I can't argue with that and think it's wise to remember it.
My problem is the ease with which people, esp. the media, declare today's popular art to be great, or even worse, important, art. 99% of the time it's not, not because it can't be, but just because great art doesn't happen so easily. As I've said elsewhere if the media weren't so irresponsible they'd bring more skepticism to their coverage of the popular arts and we wouldn't have so many discussions about whether the newest blockbuster from somebody or other wasn't the Reincarnation of Sartre by way of a Nietszhean Lobotomy and Just the Thing for Our Times.
The reason this and other movies of earlier generations become pseudo-religions is really due to the abdication of responsibility by the media. They're all trying desperately to attract a young audience so they become part of the hype machine (largely paid for by the movie studios) that blankets the world with overweighted coverage of the film. People are then naive enough to think that they're missing something and so go to see the film, start talking about it, discussing it on slashdot and once again we have the newest pseudo-religion.
It's probably all a bit worse than it was twenty years ago but more or less the same. About the only thing that's changed is the full scale abdication of critical responsibility by the media. Now the NYT has jumped in as well. Only the Wall Street Journal treated it as a movie, not a philosophic event, of all the newspapers I know of. Pretty sad.
Not pointless at all. For instance he's right about the early Mac. It just worked. Many programmers have lost sight of the goal of "just working." It's an important point, among many in the article, and has nothing to do with the "blankety, blank, blank" analogies that you present.
Though I'm a painter who's gone to programming and done it for last 5 years or so I've always thought programming closer to carpentry than painting. But the reason for that is that carpentry is a craft and painting no longer is. Both can be art. But painting has divorced itself from it's utilitarian roots and thus is no longer a craft, much to its detriment. And actually to the greater number of people who might enjoy it if it was.
But my point is that progamming is a craft just like carpentry is and painting was. All crafts can rise above the mundane but serviceable to the artistic. In carpentry that means understanding the nature of your materials, all of the possible joints and why you might use them. In painting this was once understanding your materials (when they were a bit more traditional and fewer than they are now) and also learning about drawing the human figure, lighting, perspective, etc. In programming it's learning some basic algorithms etc. But all of these crafts allow artistry and it's artists who move the fields forward. Artists do love to create beautiful things, just as the article points out. And those that do almost always inspire the most talented younger members of that parcicular field. That's because it's beauty that is compelling, not knowing how to make a dovetail or an infinite loop.
Okay, I'm getting off topic. So let me just summarize. Programming really is like a craft but all crafts are capable of being art and it's the art of it that makes it compelling. Painting was once such a craft but has gotten away from its utilitarian roots so looks just too artsy to some people. So they choose carpentry as a better analogy. In the end though, like the article says, it's the art that counts.
And that's why the best programmers, carpenters, painters are in it.
Slashdot Mirror
but you didn't fool me. I'm not quite that senile to have forgotten that Home Directory on CSV had a pointer stored away in my failing memory system. When I checked I found it pointed to the Linux Journal article where it was published a year ago.
Better luck next time!!
Well weasels may or may not be weaselly (which of course has no relation to the unixy and linuxy conversation of earlier today) but there's sure no doubt that squirrels are without a doubt the squirreliest creatures around.
The problem is not the razor sharp analysis of this weighty thinker (and lazy reader I'm sure) but that someone actually thought his sub-sophomoric comments were funny and modded it up to 4.
./ set to see only rankings of 4 or higher. I had hoped that that would at least weed out this type of idiotic comment. More and more it seems that most of the comments on book reviews are by people who haven't read the book or by people who mod those comments up not caring whether someone has read the book or not.
I keep my
Excuse me while I go readjust my preferences to 6. It's the only escape from this I'm afraid.
By the way I'm 1/4 through the book and have found it quite enlightening. I don't know anything about ESR personally. But I do know that I'm enjoying reading the book enormously.
Couldn't agree more. To those of us who are interested in learning something in depth you need books and the slow method of digestion that they require. The internet is fast but fast learning is only one type of learning, and one that I think is highly overrated.
I could go on and on about this but I'm sure it's all been said before. In many ways it reminds me of the justification that newspapers must now make for their existence, since they're obviously not that important for breaking news. They give you digested information and in a familiar format. Their bet, and one I'm sure that they're wondering about right now, is that there are enough people out there who want to read information that has been considered and edited by someone they trust. I hope that they're correct in their bet, partly because I work at a newspaper but more because I think that type of information is vital to any substantial civilization.
From the moment that I first heard the godforsaken phrase "surf the net" I really wondered how that could be so appealing to people. Yes it is fantastic for finding certain bits of information. And often those bits will lead you to other bits that MIGHT give you a somewhat full picture. But there is already something that is designed to give you a full picture and often does: THE BOOK!
Long live the book and the people who appreciate it.
Yep, it's still the text editor I use most when I'm on Windows. It just does what it's supposed to without any mess or annoyance. Too bad no one wanted to pay for that type of software!!
In fact it's probably my most used program, outside of a browser, since I use it for most coding.
Of course when I'm on the 'nixes nothing beats vi!
I've always found the auto mechanic analogy is the best one for what I do as well. The only problem is that though I realize it the people who I work for often do not. So even though I know that they wouldn't take their expensive car to a cheap mechanic I don't think that most of them (both users and management) see their IT resources in the same way as they see their cars.
Coming from a background in fine-art painting, which is by far less employable than IT, I've realized that I'm really more of a crafstman than an artist, though I do think that at one time they were much more closely intertwined. I do any number of things, from extremely basic Windows desktop support questions and laptop support questions, to Unix server questions, to shell scripting, web scripting, jsp, java, perl scripting, and ArcIMS development. Though I probably once thought of this as more artist than craftsman I now realize that it's the opposite and I'm happy with it. The good craftsman is an artist in his/her own right and I'm quite happy with that. And there's the satisfaction of a job well done, as in any craft.
Again like a craftsman, good craftsman cost a lot. If you've had a bad carpenter do a sloppy job on your kitchen renovation, or a plumber charge you a fortune for something that doesn't work you soon realize that it's worth paying more to get the job done right. I don't think that getting the job done right is really a matter of efficiency though I suppose some professional craftsman might say otherwise, i.e. they have to do a good job but they also have to do it with some speed in order to make a decent living.
Oh well, I'm rambling so I'll stop. But I did want to say that I think the mechanic analogy is an apt one.
What I notice in the article and in the responses is that we have one more example of piss-poor hybridization. Though a few readers liked the idea most of them found the CD about as useful as the AOL CDs that used to seem to appear out of the ether.
What's sad but telling about this is that is looks like one more lame-brained, half-hearted, probably cheaply implemented, attempt to hybridize, or as I'm sure they PR people would say, synergize, two media. But it's like tacking Greek columns on a log cabin. It just doesn't work. The current CD adds nothing really useful to the newspaper. So eventually the newspaper will probably decide that it's not been as successful as they'd like and not worth the effort and cost to make it really successful. And the few readers who do find it useful will probably give up as it slowly degenerates due to cost-cutting.
This is not at all to say that I think that it couldn't work. It just seems to me that most people aren't willing to spend the time and money to really think through a winning hybridization that both makes money for the newspaper and gives readers something that they really want. I have to think of Google in relation to this. They came up with something that soon became indispensible to most people. It's possible that something similar could be done with newspapers and other media. It's just that no one's had the vision and resources to make it work.
Ah well. I guess you can't get a Google every day.
You know you really think that most people must have nothing to do. Whenever they get a new tool, whether circular saw, programming language or exotic spice, they just have to use it everywhere. I guess that's partially just human nature: it's fun to experiment with something new. But they must really not have any serious need for it or they'd just use it for what they needed.
In my experience I'd say more than 50% of all tool users use them for fun/kicks, not because they have a pressing task to do with them.
I know this is way off point. I guess I just don't have anything important to do and slashdot is a fun tool............
Umm, what pages were those anecdotes and stories on????
Still haven't found one at page 76.
You did read the book didn't you?????
I'd be happy to knock it down to a 2 or so.:-)
BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT, just before I read your post demanding that it be knocked down I was thinking that someone should start a new subject on "Learning programming through books - pros and cons" or some such thing. I keep noticing these statements from people who claim that they don't need to read books, and seem to be proud of it. Personally I think that's nuts. But there certainly do seem to be a number of people of that persuasion. Much of it seems like some sort of youthful bravado but I wonder if there's also some truth to it.
I guess I'm wondering if there is a change and that there is a growing number of accomplished programmers who really don't read books. I'm happy not to be one of them but I still find it an interesting question. So, for prompting this totally unrelated post, I unofficially demote your first post to 2.0.
I think you're right about confusing obfuscation with programming machismo. But I have to say that no regular expression I've ever seen (except perhaps for last page of Mastering Regular Expressions) has been as baffling as something like $foo{$bar}{$foo2}. For me references and dereferencing and dereferencing shortcuts are the least readable elements of perl.
But perl's mindset from what I can tell is power through brevity and flexibility. Going from it to Java is tortuous. So many words to type!!! But they both have their strengths. No doubt you're right that Perl code can be made readable if you make an effort. But I think readability has never been something that the Perl community has seemed to value, at least not as much as it should. So for anyone who's never learned it, it just seems needlessly and maybe purposefully obscure and hard to read. Making readable Perl has just never seemed cool to perl community from what I can see.
I don't say this as a criticism. I really like Perl and always have. But it may take a certain type of mind to love and master its brevity.
How bout "has anyone started both books?" Based on that comparison I'd say I've gotten farther in this book than I ever did in Damian Conway's book (which I had really high expectations for based on reviews). In fact I think I started the Conway book more than once but never got more than 1/4 of the way through it. I'm halfway through this one now and have no doubts that I'll complete it.
Of course then I might go back and reread the Conway just to see if it makes more sense.
So for me I prefer this one. But that's just me. I liked the Conway book but it just got too dense too quick.
and it's slow going, but I've sure learned a lot. Now maybe I'm dense but I don't think that references, anonymous hashes, references, subroutines are all that easily understood. In fact you can accomplish a whole hell of a lot in Perl without understanding them. But for anyone wanting to make the jump to larger more complex programs you really need to understand them. I'm just finishing the references section (first half) and still have the objects section ahead of me. I've read the tutorial on objects before and at first glance this book looks similar to it. But I didn't get as far in the tutorial as I would have liked, I think because I didn't understand references as well as I should. With the solid foundation that this book gives I think that I'll get a whole lot more out of the objects section, even if it more or less duplicates the tutorial (which I doubt).
So, half way through, I give it two thumbs up. My Perl programming has just gotten a lot more sophisticated. Maybe I was dense to begin with but any step up is something I'm happy about.
As far as those nutty complaints about O'Reilly lingering at the bottom of this thread all I can say is that they've found their proper place.
Some people say God is a Jokester. You have to wonder if that's not true when news coincides in such a wonderful way.
I tried to read the old version of Learning Java, called Exploring Java, and then the 2000 version of Learning Java. Both times I just got bogged down and quit.
I can understand the dilemma that you mention in covering such a huge topic as Java. I've read many, many O'Reilly books and many of them manage to do a wonderful job of clearly exlaining very complex subjects. Though they can require concentration it often pays off. But I didn't find that it helped me with these books, even though I read rave reviews of them elsewhere. My final conclusion on them was that they really were a bit too advanced for me, even though they were supposed to be introductions.
The books that got me to understand Java and eventually get SCJP certification were Bruce Eckel's Thinking in Java (I believe I read both first and second editions), and probably most importantly: A Programmer's Guide to Java Certification by Mughal and Rasmussen. Though neither of these are all that simple they seem to begin from a theoretical viewpoint that I found myself comfortable with.
I suppose this all goes to prove that, just as the authors of Head First Java state, people learn in different ways. For me I've found that a theoretical bent is always what I like best. Others will find Learning Java perfect for them and others will find the same with Head First Java.
Like movie reviews I guess you just have to learn whose opinion you've learned to trust over time then follow their recommendations.
Well I was about to say that I agreed with you. Then I thought about all the expensive SUVs that pass me by each day, the McMansions that litter good farmland and all the other signs of affluence out of control and I think yes there is some correcting that will be done. BUT I'd be surprised if it will affect the McMansion owners. It will probably affect middle class people in IT and other such fields like myself, just as it has the rust belt workers.
But will it affect the really wealthy who are probably gaining the most from seeing jobs move out of the country. No I doubt it. So for that reason I have to disagree with you.
I really find it hard to believe that no one seems to think that everything should be subservient to the growth of capitalism. The country wasn't founded with that intent. But now everyone seems to accept it, even when the cost is their own job. Very odd. I've never really studied protectionism and how it's succeeded or failed in the past. But I do see what's happening and will continue to happen with globalization and I know that's a failure and will only get worse.
You know this whole Munich article has made me smile. But getting to see the dance again really tops it off!
So can anyone put all this into perspective, assuming that it is correct that there is some similarity of code?
So far all I've seen written in response is axe-grinding of some sort or another. I'm even sympathetic to it but it's boring as hell. What I'd really like to know are the possible ramifications of some code being similar.
Is it minor code that only is important if someone is trying to sue in order to save their own company from obsolescence? Is it major code? Is there no code? What if it was major code? How much? I assume that this doesn't refer to the kernel but other parts. It would be nice to get some perspective on it. This of course assumes that SCO has been consistent enough for anyone to be able to put into perspective.
Well at least some regulatory agencies seem to have the public good in mind.
Actually that's too good a word for it. They're ponderous, conservative tomes that don't have an inkling of suspense. The plot line is evident from page one. I hadn't read one in years and recently picked up one of the newer ones about the US joining with Russia to combat China. It was all I could do to finish it, and believe me I didn't feel that I got any reward for doing so.
I guess like most editors/coaches or whatever, they don't dare argue with success, no matter how lacking in quality that success is.
In short, Microsoft is not a company that a lot of people would give the benefit of a doubt.
Except the judicial system................ But then who ever said that it needed to have any connection to reality.
Well I think you're right, great art quite often has been popular art as well. Only time has shown it to be great art because it outlived the popularity of its day. I can't argue with that and think it's wise to remember it.
My problem is the ease with which people, esp. the media, declare today's popular art to be great, or even worse, important, art. 99% of the time it's not, not because it can't be, but just because great art doesn't happen so easily. As I've said elsewhere if the media weren't so irresponsible they'd bring more skepticism to their coverage of the popular arts and we wouldn't have so many discussions about whether the newest blockbuster from somebody or other wasn't the Reincarnation of Sartre by way of a Nietszhean Lobotomy and Just the Thing for Our Times.
The reason this and other movies of earlier generations become pseudo-religions is really due to the abdication of responsibility by the media. They're all trying desperately to attract a young audience so they become part of the hype machine (largely paid for by the movie studios) that blankets the world with overweighted coverage of the film. People are then naive enough to think that they're missing something and so go to see the film, start talking about it, discussing it on slashdot and once again we have the newest pseudo-religion.
It's probably all a bit worse than it was twenty years ago but more or less the same. About the only thing that's changed is the full scale abdication of critical responsibility by the media. Now the NYT has jumped in as well. Only the Wall Street Journal treated it as a movie, not a philosophic event, of all the newspapers I know of. Pretty sad.
Not pointless at all. For instance he's right about the early Mac. It just worked. Many programmers have lost sight of the goal of "just working." It's an important point, among many in the article, and has nothing to do with the "blankety, blank, blank" analogies that you present.
Though I'm a painter who's gone to programming and done it for last 5 years or so I've always thought programming closer to carpentry than painting. But the reason for that is that carpentry is a craft and painting no longer is. Both can be art. But painting has divorced itself from it's utilitarian roots and thus is no longer a craft, much to its detriment. And actually to the greater number of people who might enjoy it if it was.
But my point is that progamming is a craft just like carpentry is and painting was. All crafts can rise above the mundane but serviceable to the artistic. In carpentry that means understanding the nature of your materials, all of the possible joints and why you might use them. In painting this was once understanding your materials (when they were a bit more traditional and fewer than they are now) and also learning about drawing the human figure, lighting, perspective, etc. In programming it's learning some basic algorithms etc. But all of these crafts allow artistry and it's artists who move the fields forward. Artists do love to create beautiful things, just as the article points out. And those that do almost always inspire the most talented younger members of that parcicular field. That's because it's beauty that is compelling, not knowing how to make a dovetail or an infinite loop.
Okay, I'm getting off topic. So let me just summarize. Programming really is like a craft but all crafts are capable of being art and it's the art of it that makes it compelling. Painting was once such a craft but has gotten away from its utilitarian roots so looks just too artsy to some people. So they choose carpentry as a better analogy. In the end though, like the article says, it's the art that counts.
And that's why the best programmers, carpenters, painters are in it.