9 Aug
2022
9 Aug
'22
11:42 p.m.
From: Rob Pike
I still marvel at the productivity and precision of
his generatio
We noticed the same thing happening in the IETF, as the number of people
working on networking went up. The explanation is really quite simple, once
you think about it a bit.
If you have a very small group, it is quite possible to have a very high
level. (Not if it's selected randomly, of course; there has to be some
sorting function.) However, as the group gets much larger, it is
_necessarily_ much more 'average' in the skill/etc level of its members.
This rule applies to any group - which includes the members of TUHS,
of course.
Noel
10 Aug
10 Aug
12:49 a.m.
New subject: SNOBOL and RATSNO
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 01:42:32PM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
I used to complain about this at Sun and was dryly told "We get it,
Larry, you are yeast. You need flour to make bread."
And as time went on, I found that the smart people tended to find each
other. So it was fine.
It is more fun when it is a highly curated group of smart people. Made
me work hard to keep up.
From: Rob Pike
I still marvel at the productivity and precision
of his generatio
We noticed the same thing happening in the IETF, as the number of people
working on networking went up. The explanation is really quite simple, once
you think about it a bit.
If you have a very small group, it is quite possible to have a very high
level. (Not if it's selected randomly, of course; there has to be some
sorting function.) However, as the group gets much larger, it is
_necessarily_ much more 'average' in the skill/etc level of its members.
12:54 a.m.
New subject: SNOBOL and RATSNO
On 8/9/22 2:49 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 01:42:32PM -0400, Noel Chiappa
wrote:
I used to complain about this at Sun and was dryly told "We get it,
Larry, you are yeast. You need flour to make bread."
And as time went on, I found that the smart people tended to find each
other. So it was fine.
It is more fun when it is a highly curated group of smart people. Made
me work hard to keep up.
Put another way, "If you're always the smartest person in the room,
you're spending your time in the wrong rooms."
From: Rob
Pike
I still marvel at the productivity and precision
of his generatio
We noticed the same thing happening in the IETF, as the number of people
working on networking went up. The explanation is really quite simple, once
you think about it a bit.
If you have a very small group, it is quite possible to have a very high
level. (Not if it's selected randomly, of course; there has to be some
sorting function.) However, as the group gets much larger, it is
_necessarily_ much more 'average' in the skill/etc level of its members.
1 a.m.
New subject: SNOBOL and RATSNO
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 02:54:08PM -0400, Tom Teixeira wrote:
On 8/9/22 2:49 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
I was usually the dumbest one in the room, I found the right rooms :-)
I personally like being "dumb", the other people just make you want to
work harder to reach their level. Back when I used to play pool pretty
seriously, I always tried to play people better than me. You get lazy
if you are the best.
--
---
Larry McVoy Retired to fishing http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 01:42:32PM -0400, Noel
Chiappa wrote:
I
used to complain about this at Sun and was dryly told "We get it,
Larry, you are yeast. You need flour to make bread."
And as time went on, I found that the smart people tended to find each
other. So it was fine.
It is more fun when it is a highly curated group of smart people. Made
me work hard to keep up.
Put another way, "If you're always the smartest person in the room,
you're
spending your time in the wrong rooms." From: Rob
Pike
I still marvel at the productivity and precision
of his generatio
We noticed the same thing happening in the IETF, as the number of people
working on networking went up. The explanation is really quite simple, once
you think about it a bit.
If you have a very small group, it is quite possible to have a very high
level. (Not if it's selected randomly, of course; there has to be some
sorting function.) However, as the group gets much larger, it is
_necessarily_ much more 'average' in the skill/etc level of its members. 
1:21 a.m.
New subject: SNOBOL and RATSNO
I've always believed that pic was so well
designed
because it took a day to get the print out (back then), so you had to
have a language where you could see what it was doing.
I'll confess: I was never very good at bench
checking batch programs, but only had at most a handful of assignments in college:
generally cycles were cheap on time-sharing systems and I quickly adapted to interactive
debugging.
Along these lines, if I'm understanding correctly, my hunch would be
that part of the precision being discussed was born out of necessity.
When you can't debug interactively, you're forced to be precise with
your changes, influencing how you think. On the flip side, when
interactive development is an option, there's an easy route to take -
and so that's what ends up informing those developmer's thought
patterns.
I think it's possible that if you were to force a new generation to
only be able to iterate once a day, you may end up with a new
generation with that precision. Perhaps material for a fun experiment
for the teachers on the list.
Cheers,
Marshall
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:01 PM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 02:54:08PM -0400, Tom Teixeira wrote:
On 8/9/22 2:49 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
I was usually the dumbest one in the room, I found the right rooms :-)
I personally like being "dumb", the other people just make you want to
work harder to reach their level. Back when I used to play pool pretty
seriously, I always tried to play people better than me. You get lazy
if you are the best.
--
---
Larry McVoy Retired to fishing http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 01:42:32PM -0400, Noel
Chiappa wrote:
Put another way, "If you're always the smartest person in the room,
you're
spending your time in the wrong rooms." > From: Rob Pike
> I still marvel at the productivity and precision of his generatio
We noticed the same thing happening in the IETF, as the number of people
working on networking went up. The explanation is really quite simple, once
you think about it a bit.
If you have a very small group, it is quite possible to have a very high
level. (Not if it's selected randomly, of course; there has to be some
sorting function.) However, as the group gets much larger, it is
_necessarily_ much more 'average' in the skill/etc level of its members.
I
used to complain about this at Sun and was dryly told "We get it,
Larry, you are yeast. You need flour to make bread."
And as time went on, I found that the smart people tended to find each
other. So it was fine.
It is more fun when it is a highly curated group of smart people. Made
me work hard to keep up. 
2:19 a.m.
New subject: SNOBOL and RATSNO
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 1:23 PM Marshall Conover <marzhall.o(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I think it was a confluence of many things. Programs had to be smaller
(bigger ones didn't fit).
Interactive terminals were non-existant or extremely limited (80x24).
Printing out
listings and 'desk checking' the output was something you had plenty of
time to do.
Computing budgets were tiny: You had only so many $$$ for your runs and if
you made
too many, you'd run out of $$$ before you were done (more applicable as a
student than
as a professional post school though). Consequently your time was plentiful
and
computer time was scarce. Plus people from that generation tended to think
globally
and didn't compartmentalize as much as is done today (where people are told
that
everything below you in the stack can be considered hardware don't worry
about
how it works). The systems were also simpler to program, since all the 'go
fast'
caveats you have to cope with in todays system didn't exists, which also
encourage
global thinking.
Plus, computer programmers tended to be the best and the brightest because
they were the only ones that could (a) afford to undertake their study and
(b) the
only ones that didn't wash out of very demanding university programs. Plus
companies
tended to only trust their super expensive machines to the best and the
brightest,
further enhancing their skills (which we now know are built with
repetition) while the
less bright tended to be relegated to other machines with fewer
opportunities.
(yes, I know the previous paragraph way over-generalizes a very complex and
subtle dynamic that was at play, hence 'tendency' rather than some other
more
definite word).
Warner
I've
always believed that pic was so well designed
because it took a day to get the
print out (back then), so you had to
have a language where you could see what it was doing.
I'll confess: I was never very good at bench
checking batch programs,
but only had at most a handful of assignments in college:
generally cycles
were cheap on time-sharing systems and I quickly adapted to interactive
debugging.
Along these lines, if I'm understanding correctly, my hunch would be
that part of the precision being discussed was born out of necessity.
When you can't debug interactively, you're forced to be precise with
your changes, influencing how you think. On the flip side, when
interactive development is an option, there's an easy route to take -
and so that's what ends up informing those developmer's thought
patterns.
I think it's possible that if you were to force a new generation to
only be able to iterate once a day, you may end up with a new
generation with that precision. Perhaps material for a fun experiment
for the teachers on the list.
Cheers,
Marshall
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 3:01 PM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/boat
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 02:54:08PM -0400, Tom Teixeira wrote:
> On 8/9/22 2:49 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 01:42:32PM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> >> > From: Rob Pike
> >>
> >> > I still marvel at the productivity and precision of his
generatio
> >>
> >>We noticed the same thing happening in the IETF, as the number of
people
> >>working on networking went up. The
explanation is really quite
simple, once
> >>you think about it a bit.
> >>
> >>If you have a very small group, it is quite possible to have a very
high
> >>level. (Not if it's selected
randomly, of course; there has to be
some
> >>sorting function.) However, as the
group gets much larger, it is
> >>_necessarily_ much more 'average' in the skill/etc level of its
members.
> >I used to complain about this at Sun and
was dryly told "We get it,
> >Larry, you are yeast. You need flour to make bread."
> >
> >And as time went on, I found that the smart people tended to find each
> >other. So it was fine.
> >
> >It is more fun when it is a highly curated group of smart people.
Made
> >me work hard to keep up.
>
> Put another way, "If you're always the smartest person in the room,
you're
spending
your time in the wrong rooms."
I was usually the dumbest one in the room, I found the right rooms :-)
I personally like being "dumb", the other people just make you want to
work harder to reach their level. Back when I used to play pool pretty
seriously, I always tried to play people better than me. You get lazy
if you are the best.
--
---
Larry McVoy Retired to fishing 
2:43 a.m.
New subject: mainframe $ budgets [was Re: Re: SNOBOL and RATSNO
Early on in my career at IBM Yorktown, ca. 1976, I was submitting many
long running simulation jobs to the 360/91 there. At one point, the head
of computer systems (I.T. if you will) wrote to the head of computer
sciences (my department) complaining that I had just spent $50K over
some short period, asking if this was justified. My management shrugged
it off, encouraged me to continue what I was doing. I might still have
the letter somewhere.
A couple of years later, while on the faculty at U.T. Austin, one of the
main budgetary items in research grant proposals was purchase of
mini-computers, assuming those were a more efficient use of funds than
paying for time at the campus computing center (then using CDC 6600 and
successors).
COFF?
Charlie
On 8/9/2022 3:19 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
Computing budgets were tiny: You had only so many $$$
for your runs and
if you made
too many, you'd run out of $$$ before you were done (more applicable as
a student than
as a professional post school though). Consequently your time was
plentiful and
computer time was scarce.
--
voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer(a)technologists.com
fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
Facebook/Google/Twitter: CharlesHSauer
2:58 a.m.
New subject: mainframe $ budgets [was Re: Re: SNOBOL and RATSNO
LOL
I joined IBM Research in Yorktown in 1978. I was an electrical engineer
and one of the first problems I was given was modeling a novel concept for
an X-Y touch panel. I realized that the model is basically solving
Laplace's equation in the plane. I was not a programmer at the time, so I
asked what was the recommended thing for that. I was told APL, so I
grabbed a manual and got to work.
Within a day or two I had a nice solver working and was getting useful
results.
(Of course, solving Laplace in the plane by relaxation is the slowest
possible way to get to the answer, but I didn't know much about numerical
methods back in those days.)
The next week I got a visit from the same IT weenies who had bothered you.
They told me that in my first week on the job I had managed to be the
biggest consumer of CPU cycles on the 370/168 and that I had to learn to
program in PL/I because compiled was better than interpreted. It took me
several weeks to get it working, since PL/I was such a pain in the neck and
I had to learn all sorts of stuff about how numbers were represented in the
hardware.
Obviously my time was worth less than the computer's.
Bleh.
=====
nygeek.net
mindthegapdialogs.com/home <https://www.mindthegapdialogs.com/home>
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 4:43 PM Charles H Sauer (he/him) <
sauer(a)technologists.com> wrote:
Early on in my career at IBM Yorktown, ca. 1976, I was
submitting many
long running simulation jobs to the 360/91 there. At one point, the head
of computer systems (I.T. if you will) wrote to the head of computer
sciences (my department) complaining that I had just spent $50K over
some short period, asking if this was justified. My management shrugged
it off, encouraged me to continue what I was doing. I might still have
the letter somewhere.
A couple of years later, while on the faculty at U.T. Austin, one of the
main budgetary items in research grant proposals was purchase of
mini-computers, assuming those were a more efficient use of funds than
paying for time at the campus computing center (then using CDC 6600 and
successors).
COFF?
Charlie
On 8/9/2022 3:19 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
Computing budgets were tiny: You had only so many
$$$ for your runs and
if you made
too many, you'd run out of $$$ before you were done (more applicable as
a student than
as a professional post school though). Consequently your time was
plentiful and
computer time was scarce.
--
voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer(a)technologists.com
fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
Facebook/Google/Twitter
<https://technologists.com/sauer/Facebook/Google/Twitter>: CharlesHSauer
4:49 a.m.
New subject: mainframe $ budgets [was Re: Re: SNOBOL and RATSNO
And, of course, it should be noted that $50K was significantly more than
typical annual salaries for researchers back then.
On 8/9/2022 3:58 PM, Marc Donner wrote:
LOL
I joined IBM Research in Yorktown in 1978. I was an electrical engineer
and one of the first problems I was given was modeling a novel concept
for an X-Y touch panel. I realized that the model is basically solving
Laplace's equation in the plane. I was not a programmer at the time, so
I asked what was the recommended thing for that. I was told APL, so I
grabbed a manual and got to work.
Within a day or two I had a nice solver working and was getting useful
results.
(Of course, solving Laplace in the plane by relaxation is the slowest
possible way to get to the answer, but I didn't know much about
numerical methods back in those days.)
The next week I got a visit from the same IT weenies who had bothered
you. They told me that in my first week on the job I had managed to be
the biggest consumer of CPU cycles on the 370/168 and that I had to
learn to program in PL/I because compiled was better than interpreted.
It took me several weeks to get it working, since PL/I was such a pain
in the neck and I had to learn all sorts of stuff about how numbers were
represented in the hardware.
Obviously my time was worth less than the computer's.
Bleh.
=====
nygeek.net <http://nygeek.net>
mindthegapdialogs.com/home <https://www.mindthegapdialogs.com/home>
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 4:43 PM Charles H Sauer (he/him)
<sauer(a)technologists.com <mailto:sauer@technologists.com>> wrote:
Early on in my career at IBM Yorktown, ca. 1976, I was submitting many
long running simulation jobs to the 360/91 there. At one point, the
head
of computer systems (I.T. if you will) wrote to the head of computer
sciences (my department) complaining that I had just spent $50K over
some short period, asking if this was justified. My management shrugged
it off, encouraged me to continue what I was doing. I might still have
the letter somewhere.
A couple of years later, while on the faculty at U.T. Austin, one of
the
main budgetary items in research grant proposals was purchase of
mini-computers, assuming those were a more efficient use of funds than
paying for time at the campus computing center (then using CDC 6600 and
successors).
COFF?
Charlie
On 8/9/2022 3:19 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
--
voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer(a)technologists.com
fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
Facebook/Google/Twitter: CharlesHSauer
Computing budgets were tiny: You had only so many
$$$ for your
runs and
if you made
too many, you'd run out of $$$ before you were done (more
applicable as
a student than
as a professional post school though). Consequently your time was
plentiful and
computer time was scarce.
--
voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer(a)technologists.com
<mailto:sauer@technologists.com>
fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
Facebook/Google/Twitter
<https://technologists.com/sauer/Facebook/Google/Twitter>: CharlesHSauer
11 Aug
11 Aug
3:13 a.m.
New subject: SNOBOL and RATSNO
“The trouble with folk songs is thst they are written by the people.” -Tom Lehrer.
Ches
On Aug 9, 2022, at 13:42, jnc(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu
wrote:
However, as the group gets much larger, it is
_necessarily_ much more 'average' in the skill/etc level of its members.
3:30 a.m.
New subject: SNOBOL and RATSNO
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 5:13 PM Bill Cheswick <ches(a)cheswick.com> wrote:
“The trouble with folk songs is thst they are written
by the people.” -Tom
Lehrer.
Lehrer's songs, especially "The Periodic Table", have now become subject
to
the folk process themselves. "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" was
originally written by the Romantic poet Robert Southey, although in his
version the bears' antagonist was a "wicked old woman".
10:08 p.m.
New subject: SNOBOL and RATSNO
Here's your blackmail video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02N_UOmT8Kk&t=2s
=====
nygeek.net
mindthegapdialogs.com/home <https://www.mindthegapdialogs.com/home>
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 5:32 PM John Cowan <cowan(a)ccil.org> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 5:13 PM Bill Cheswick <ches(a)cheswick.com> wrote:
“The trouble with folk songs is thst they are
written by the people.”
-Tom Lehrer.
Lehrer's songs, especially "The Periodic Table", have now become subject
to the folk process themselves. "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" was
originally written by the Romantic poet Robert Southey, although in his
version the bears' antagonist was a "wicked old woman".
647
days inactive
649
days old
11 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Bill Cheswick -
Charles H Sauer (he/him) -
jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu -
John Cowan -
Larry McVoy -
Marc Donner -
Marshall Conover -
Tom Teixeira -
Warner Losh