Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!jarthur!uunet!aria!dumbcat!marc From: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us (Marco S Hyman) Newsgroups: comp.object Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: <286@dumbcat.sf.ca.us> Date: 9 Apr 91 03:57:35 GMT References: <1991Apr2.175756.12586@visix.com> <1574@acf5.NYU.EDU> Organization: MH Software, Hayward, CA. Lines: 25 In article <1574@acf5.NYU.EDU> sabbagh@acf5.NYU.EDU (sabbagh) writes: > Suppose we didn't call them hackers; supposed we called them "researchers". > Sure, their code is messy, ugly, hard to maintain. But they explored the > limits of hardware and software; they have developed algorithms to solve > real world problems; they have asked the right questions: what tools are > needed, how to make maintainable software, etc. Sorry, Hadil, but there's more to the difference between "hacker" and "researcher" than a change of name. Researchers write up the results of their experiments, sharing those results with the rest of the world. What better documentation could you ask for? The goal is to add and share knowledge. (Yes, the "hacker ethic" shares this goal -- but the term "hacker" has gained negative connotations in the context of "software engineering." The terms "hack" and "quick, throwaway, and dirty " have become synonymous.) Hackers (the bad kind) are worse that incompetent; they're selfish. Their code is written to solve a specific problem today and to hell with anyone who might have the same problem tomorrow. Hackers (the bad kind) can be selfish in any language. Researchers can teach new concepts and ideas using any language. -- // marc // home: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us pacbell!dumbcat!marc // work: marc@ascend.com uunet!aria!marc