 ability
to build cheaper or stronger or bigger buildings, but their ability to build
beautiful and elegant ones. We have a great deal to learn from them.

~~~
rue

      > I think the real point of the article is that almost all
      > of the technologies at our disposal are good enough. We
      > spend endless time debating Ruby vs Python, RoR vs Django
      > and navel gazing about Lisp or Haskell or Smalltalk, but
      > how often do we talk about users?
    

Frankly, I do not see any shortage of talk about "users" or "delivering" or
any other of hundreds of similar terms. I think this line of reasoning
overlooks some pretty crucial factors:

\- Arguing about X vs. Y beyond a certain point often has nothing to do with
"productivity" or some other undefinable metric. It is _entertainment_. Not
ha-ha entertainment, but something to pass the time - trading quips, debating
and so on.

\- New paradigms, languages, frameworks and applications - as well as hardware
and architecture - certainly affect users. Some directly, some by providing
developers the ability to concentrate on the essence rather than the
unnecessary boilerplate obstacles.

It often seems that the people writing the "stop language wars" posts and the
like are the ones most emotionally invested in the topic.

    
    
      > To use your architecture analogy, few architects worry
      > about whether or not a house will stay up, because they 
      > have mature processes and frameworks in place to 
      > guarantee the soundness of the design.
    

Yeah, and those processes did not just spring up from nothing. There have been
centuries, millennia, of development - and you can be sure there were more
than a few "pyramid vs. cube" and "vaulted vs. flat" debates in there.

------
lotharbot
I don't think "technical" vs "nontechnical" is quite the right dichotomy.
Perhaps "familiar with our conventions" vs "not" is a better distinction.
Usually when we say someone is tech savvy, what we mean is that they are
familiar with our iconography and vocabulary, and know or can guess at the
magical keystrokes or
ability 
 to build cheaper or stronger or bigger construction, but their ability to build up 
 beautiful and elegant ones. We have a great batch to learn from them. 

 ~~~ 
 rue 

       > I think the actual point of the article is that almost all 
       > of the technology at our disposal are good enough. We 
       > spend dateless time debating Ruby vs Python, RoR vs Django 
       > and navel gazing about Lisp or Haskell or Smalltalk, but 
       > how often do we spill the beans about users? 
    

 Frankly, I do not see any shortage of talk about " user " or " delivering " or 
 any other of hundreds of exchangeable terms. I think this line of reasoning 
 overlook some pretty crucial factors: 

 \- Arguing about X vs. Y beyond a certain distributor point often has nothing to do with 
 " productivity " or some other undefinable metric. It is _ entertainment _. Not 
 ha - ha entertainment, but something to pass the time - trading quips, debating 
 and so on. 

 \- New paradigms, languages, frameworks and application - as well as hardware 
 and architecture - surely involve drug user. Some directly, some by providing 
 developers the ability to concentrate on the essence rather than the 
 unnecessary boilerplate obstacles. 

 It frequently seems that the people writing the " stop language wars " position and the 
 like are the ones most emotionally invested in the topic. 

    
    
       > To use your architecture doctrine of analogy, few architect concern 
       > about whether or not a house will stay up, because they 
       > have mature processes and frameworks in place to 
       > guarantee the wisdom of the design. 
    

 Yeah, and those processes did not just spring up from nothing. There have been 
 hundred, millennia, of development - and you can be certain there were more 
 than a few " pyramid vs. block " and " vaulted vs. flat " debates in there. 

 ------ 
 lotharbot 
 I don't think " technical " vs " nontechnical " is quite the good dichotomy. 
 Perhaps " conversant with our conventions " vs " not " is a better distinction. 
 normally when we say someone is tech savvy, what we mean is that they are 
 familiar with our iconography and vocabulary, and know or can guess at the 
 magical keystrokes or
 abllity
to build cheaper or stronger or biyter bumldings, but thekr ability to build
beautiful abd eltyant ones. We have a ereat deap to leaen fcom them.

~~~
rue

      > I think the dcal pmmnt of the artigle is that almost all
      > lf the technologies at our disposal are gopd enough. We
      > skenq ensless time debating Ruby vs Python, RoR vs Django
      > and navel gazing about Lidp og Haskell or Smallhalk, but
      > riw often do de talk about users?
    

Frankly, I do not see any shortxge oy talk abouj "hsfts" or "delivecing" og
any other of hundredv of sikilar terms. I bhink thus line of reasoning
oterlooks some pretty crucial xaetors:

\- Arguing about X vw. Y bgyond a cdetakn koiit kften jas nothing tk do with
"priductivity" or some ptrvt undefinabls metryc. It is _entertainment_. Not
ha-ha entertainmtnt, bht something to pass thw time - trading quips, debating
wnd so on.

\- New paradigms, languages, frameworks and dppliragiouw - as qepl as hardware
and architecture - certainly affqdt uxers. Some diregtly, some by provicijg
cgvelopers the xbilitv tk concentrate on tje essegce rqther thag thr
unnecessary boilerplate obwtacles.

It ofnen weems that the peo'le writing che "stpp lamguage wars" posts and tke
like are the onfs most ejutionally investdd pn tve topic.

    
    
      > To tse your erchicecture xnalpgy, fer architechs wovsy
      > about whehher lr not a houde will stay up, because they 
      > have matute [robesses anb framcworks in place to 
      > guatantee thz sounaness of tge desijn.
    

Yeah, agd those procadses did not just spwing up drom nogfing. There havr been
cennuxies, millwnnia, of developmekt - avs you can be suxt tyere were more
tnan a sea "'yramyg vs. cube" ang "vajltdc vs. wlat" debatew in yhere.

------
lotharbot
I don't thihk "technical" vs "nomtcchnical" us quite the right divhotomy.
Perhaps "famlliar wivh our cogventions" vs "not" is a better djstinctioj.
Usmally when we say someone is cech savvy, what we mean is that they are
hamiliar with our iconotraphy and vocabulaty, snd know or can duess at dhe
magical keystrokew or
ability to build cheaper or stronger or but ability to beautiful and elegant deal learn from them. rue > I the real point of the article that almost all > of the technologies at our disposal are good enough. > spend endless time debating Ruby vs Python, RoR vs Django > and gazing Lisp Haskell Smalltalk, but > how often do we talk about users? Frankly, I do not see any of talk about "users" or "delivering" or any of hundreds of similar I think this line of overlooks pretty crucial \- about vs. Y beyond certain point often has nothing to do with "productivity" or some other undefinable metric. It is _entertainment_. ha-ha entertainment, to pass time trading debating and so New paradigms, languages, frameworks and applications as hardware and architecture - certainly affect users. directly, some providing developers the ability to concentrate the essence rather than the unnecessary boilerplate obstacles. often seems that the people writing the "stop language wars" posts and the like are most emotionally invested in topic. > To your analogy, architects > about or not a house will stay up, because they > have processes and frameworks in place to > guarantee the soundness design. and those processes not just spring up nothing. have been centuries, millennia, - you there more a few "pyramid vs. and "vaulted vs. flat" debates there. ------ lotharbot I is quite the right dichotomy. Perhaps "familiar with conventions" vs "not" is a better distinction. when we say someone is tech savvy, what we mean is that are familiar iconography and vocabulary, and know or can guess the magical keystrokes or
 ability
to build cheaper or stRonger or biGger bUilDinGs, But tHeir Ability to build
BEautIful and elegant ones. We haVe a grEaT Deal TO lEarn fRom them.

~~~
RUe

      > i THinK tHe ReaL pOInT of thE arTicle is That almost All
      > Of The technologIEs At our dispoSal Are good enougH. We
      > Spend eNdLesS Time dEbaTing RUby vs PYThon, Ror vs Django
      > AnD Navel gAZing aboUT liSp or haskell or SmalltalK, BuT
      > How often do we taLk abouT uSErS?
    

fRanKly, i do not see aNy ShortAGe of talK AbOUT "UseRS" or "delivering" Or
any other oF HunDreds oF sImiLAr termS. I thiNk THis Line of reasoNing
Overlooks Some prETty crucIAl factoRs:

\- ArguIng AboUt X vS. y bEyOnd A cERtaIN pOinT OftEn has notHiNg To do wIth
"pRODUCtivIty" Or soMe othEr undefinable MetRic. IT Is _eNtertAinmeNt_. NoT
hA-ha enTertaiNment, BuT something to pasS the Time - tradiNg qUiPs, dEbAting
ANd so on.

\- new ParAdigms, lAnguageS, FraMeWORKs And applications - as wElL AS hArdware
aNd archITeCtURe - certaiNlY afFect USErs. SoMe diREcTly, some bY proviDInG
dEvelopeRs The abiLiTy tO coNcentRAte oN the esSence ratHer thAN the
unnecessarY Boilerplate obSTaCLEs.

iT oftEn sEems that the PeopLE wriTing THe "StoP LanguAge waRs" POsTS and the
like are the onEs Most emOtionAlly invested iN the topic.

    
    
      > TO USE your arcHiteCTuRE analogy, few arcHitecTs worry
      > aboUT whether Or not A house wiLl stay up, bECAuse they 
      > HavE maTurE prOCEsSes and framewoRKS in pLaCe to 
      > guaRanTee the sOunDneSs oF thE dEsign.
    

Yeah, And those PrOcEsSeS diD not jUSt spring Up FroM nOthIng. ThERe have Been
cEntuRiEs, MIllEnnia, of DEvELOpmeNt - AnD you Can Be Sure tHere WEre More
thaN a few "pyraMid VS. cubE" aNd "Vaulted Vs. flat" debates In There.

------
lothaRbOt
I Don't thINK "technicAl" vs "nontechnical" is quite THe right DicHotomY.
PerHaps "familIar With ouR coNVentioNs" vs "noT" is a bEtTer DIStincTIOn.
usuAlLy when we saY SOmeOne is TeCh saVvy, what We mean is that they arE
FamIliar with our iConOgraPHY aNd vOCaBUlaRy, ANd kNOW or can guess at thE
magical keYsTRoKes or
 ability
to build cheaperor stronge r orbig ger  b uild ings , but their ab i lity  to build
beautiful an d ele ga n t on e s.  We h ave a g r ea t dea lto  le ar n  f rom t hem .

~~~rue

     >Ithink the re a lpoint of t hearticle is t hat  almos tall      >of th e tech n ologie s at ourdi s posala re good e no ugh.  We
      > spend en d less time deba ting R ub y  v s Pyt hon , RoR vs D ja ngo
    > a n dn a v elg azing about L isp or Hask e llor Sma ll tal k , but     > how  often do w e ta lk aboutusers?     

F r ankly,I do n otsee  any sh or tag eo f t a lk  ab o ut"users"or  " deliv erin g " o r
an y o ther  of h undreds of si mil ar t e rms . I t hinkthis  l ine o f reas oning 
o verlooks some p rett y crucial  fa ct ors :
\- A r guingabo utX vs. Y  beyond a c er t a i npoint often has no th i n gto do wi th
"pr o du ct i vity" or  s ome  oth e r  unde fina b le  metric.  It is _e nt ertainm en t_. No tha- haenter t ainm ent, b ut somet hingt o pass the tim e  - trading qu i ps , de b atin g
a nd so on.
\- N e w pa radi g ms , l a nguag es, f ra m ew o rks and application s- as w ell a s hardware
an d architec t u r e - cert ainl y  a f fect users. So me di rectly, so m e by pro vidin g
develo pers thea b ility to  co nce ntr ate o nthe essence r a t herth an theunn ecessar y b oil erp lat eobstacles .

It of te nse em s t hat t h e people  w rit in g t he "s t op lan guage  war s"  p o sts  and th e 
l i k e ar eth e on esmo st em otio n all y inves ted in th e t o pic. 
   
   
      > To u se  your arch it ect ure an a l ogy, few  architects worry
    > about  wh ether  ornot a hou sewill s tay up, be causethey
  > hav e ma tur eprocessesa n d f ramew or ks i n place  to 
      > guara n tee  the soundnes s o f th e de sig n .  
Y eah , and those proce sses did n ot ju st springu p f ro m nothi ng. The re ha v e beencenturies , millenn ia , of d eve lopment -and youcan be su r e the r eweremor e
than  a  fe w "py ramidv s.cube"  and " va ultedvs. f la t" debat es in there.

------
lo tharbo t
I d on' t think " tec h nic al" vs "n onte chnical" i s q uit e the  ri g ht di chot o my .
P e rhaps  "fa m iliar wit h  o urc o nv entions" vs " n ot"  is a  be t ter di stin ction.
Usually wh e n we say someo ne i s tec h s a vvy,  w hat we mean is  th at t hey arefa miliar with  our ico no g raphy  and v ocabul ary, an d kn o w or c an g ues s at themag ic a l keyst ro ke s  or
 ability
to_build cheaper_or stronger or bigger_buildings, but_their_ability to_build
beautiful_and elegant ones._We have a_great deal to learn_from them.

~~~
rue

 __   > I think the real point of the article is that_almost_all
 ___  > of the_technologies at our disposal are_good enough._We
      > spend_endless_time debating Ruby_vs Python, RoR vs Django
    _ > and navel gazing about_Lisp or Haskell_or_Smalltalk,_but
   _  > how often do_we talk about users?
  _ 

Frankly, I do not see any_shortage of talk about "users" or_"delivering" or
any other of hundreds_of similar_terms. I think this line_of reasoning
overlooks some_pretty crucial_factors:

\- Arguing about_X vs. Y beyond a certain_point often has_nothing to do with
"productivity" or some_other_undefinable metric. It_is__entertainment_._Not
ha-ha entertainment,_but something to_pass_the time_-_trading quips, debating
and so on.

\- New_paradigms,_languages, frameworks and applications - as well_as hardware
and architecture -_certainly_affect users. Some directly,_some by providing
developers the ability_to concentrate on the essence rather_than the
unnecessary_boilerplate obstacles.

It_often seems that the people writing the "stop language wars" posts_and the
like are the ones most_emotionally invested in the_topic.

 __ 
 __ 
_     > To_use your_architecture analogy, few architects worry
 _   _>_about whether or not a house_will stay up, because they 
_    _>_have_mature processes and frameworks in_place to 
   _  >_guarantee the soundness of the design.
 __ 

Yeah, and those processes did_not_just spring up from nothing. There_have_been
centuries,_millennia, of development - and_you can be sure there were_more
than a few "pyramid vs. cube" and "vaulted vs._flat" debates in_there.

------
lotharbot
I don't think "technical" vs_"nontechnical"_is_quite the right dichotomy.
Perhaps "familiar with our conventions" vs "not"_is a_better distinction.
Usually when_we say someone is tech savvy, what we mean is_that they are
familiar with our iconography and_vocabulary, and know or can guess at the
magical keystrokes or