That moment where you’re looking back through your notes to see that you’ve:
- modelled charge carrier behaviour in semiconductors
- built a processor from discrete logic components
- patched kernels
- patched operating system tools
- written filesystems
- written device drivers
- contributed to a foundation library
- fixed compiler bugs
- performance-tuned databases
- built native apps
- built web apps
- tested the above
- taught other developers
- mentored other developers
- sold the above skills
Someone who tells you that programmers are rational actors who are above marketing is lying. Everything in the field is marketing, including the idea of rationality. Performing such marketing becomes easier when the recipients don’t think it exists, or don’t think they’re the sort of people who would fall for it.
I’m reminded of the audience reaction to this serial entrepreneur describing his recently-acquired startup’s technology (skip to 10:24 if the timestamped URL doesn’t do that automatically for you). He presents these four points:
- DOS: 1 Analogy Unit
- Mac + HI Toolbox: 5 Analogy Units
- DOS + Windows: 7 Analogy Units
- Mach OS + OpenStep: 20 Analogy Units
Listen to the applause for the unjustified number 20.
The first working week of August 2014 comes ten years after the first working week of August 2004. You knew that. The first working week of August 2004 was the first week since completing my degree that I worked for a living: the start of a sequence of (paid) events that led me to here.
Obviously it’s not the start of the sequence at all, but I’ve already covered that story. It’s not even when I first learned Objective-C: that was about a year earlier. However, stories are easier to tell if they begin once upon a time, rather than in the middle of a collection of events, the connections between which being subtle and hard to examine.
It would be nice to give a recommendation to people who are in the position now that I was ten years ago, but it’s unlikely that the same things that worked back in 2004 are still applicable. Should you want to try, then my suggestion is this: bet your whole career on some apparently minuscule niche, and hope against hope that the only vendor supporting it creates a whole new industry within about four years so that your seemingly poor decision cashes out.
As an aside, you can draw clear lines around the things I was using back then that I’m still using now. Some of the lines are fuzzy: I’m still using “UNIX”, though that doesn’t mean the same thing (nor did it mean then anything that would’ve been recognisable to a user from 1994, 1984 or 1974).
It would perhaps be less nice to give a list of lessons that I claim to have learned over those ten years. Those would, of course, be lessons that I derive now from my recollection of that time, and would mostly serve to add to the corpus of folklore that permeates our field.
Which brings me on to the one thing I unequivocally do know after ten years in [IT, computers, whatever you want to call it]: that I still don’t know a lot. I definitely know more about programming computers than I did then, but that’s only an infinitesimal part of the fundamental interconnectedness of all things.
Scene: in front of a green screen somewhere in the present day. Our protagonist, freshly burned out from a session of writing dynamically-typed web backend code in
vim, looks up from the monitor. In the distance, some way along the beach, they see an odd shape poking out of the sand. Their curiosity piqued, they trudge out under the burning sun toward the edifice.
Running a risk of collapsing through dehydration, finally they are close enough to the object to be able to see through the heat haze that it is the top of a large statue that’s largely covered by centuries of detritus. The only discernible features are a hand holding aloft a chorded keyer, and the stern-browed head of Douglas Englebart.
Oh my God, I’m back. I’m home. All the time it was…we finally really did it. YOU MANIACS! OH DAMN YOU! GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!
[Int: Moscone West convention center third floor ballroom. A presentation is taking place.]
So that was an update on our existing products, which I’m proud to say have never been stronger. Now I’d like to talk to you about our watch. We think you’re gonna love it.
When thinking about recent attempts to make wristwatches by some of our competitors, you’re probably thinking whatever happened to the retina display?
I’ll tell you what happened: you’re looking at it in the wrong size. The pixel density is fine, but the screen’s smaller than it looks on this projector.
No, smaller than that.
Hmm, eye strain doesn’t sound like a future thing does it? Shouldn’t we come up with something a bit more ergonomic?
…actually, no, it’s a reasonable compromise. Centuries of user experience research have shown that future people find it most natural to talk into their scaphoid bones. That’s even true when they’re plastic people who don’t actually have scaphoid bones!
[Sidenote: No, I will not be apologising for the alt text on that image.]
The technology was originally introduced as part of the struggle to end the Cold War, when one key application was in the unification of Germany.
After seeing how people tried to use these devices, we came up with the breakthrough form factor: five pounds of computer-machined aluminum and an incomprehensible user interface.
So that’s the watch. We can’t wait to see what you do with it!
I recently asked how people would describe this Secure Mac Programming blog were they trying to tell someone else they should read it. Of all the answers, the one that most succinctly sums up the trouble with the old name is from Alan:
@secboffin Not Just Secure, Not Just Mac, Not Just Programming.
I’m probably in the midst of some existential crisis, having spent a couple of years thinking and writing about philosophy, ethics, and the social responsibility of my work and its context. It’s clear that I’m dealing with some conflict, and it doesn’t look like reconciliation is an option.
Often I write about ideas that are still knocking around my head, such that I never come to any conclusion. I’ve used multiple choice conclusions, conclusions that appear to be from a different argument, and have concluded that my entire argument may or may not be useful.
This is just something I need to work out: what do I think I do, what do other people think I do, what parts of that do I like and dislike, are there other things I would like, can I replace the disliked parts with the liked parts, and so on. I write it here as you may have related ideas, or you may be thinking about the same things yourself and benefit from knowing that other people are, too.
What I know includes a list of things that currently interest me:
With all that in mind, I’m happy to introduce the beginning of a slow rebranding of this blog. It is now called the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programmers, and can be found at http://www.sicpers.info/ in addition to its previous home at http://blog.securemacprogramming.com.
I do not intend to remove the old domain or break existing feed subscriptions. Over time (basically, as I work out how to do it) I’ll migrate links, feed entries and so on to reference the new domain, and the age-old updated mission of the blog.