shaswat123/etnlp · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 412k
applications. Our horror at that prospect was the single biggest
thing that drove us to start building web apps.At least we know now what it would take to break Apple's lock.
You'd have to get iPhones out of programmers' hands. If programmers
used some other device for mobile web access, they'd start to develop
apps for that instead.How could you make a device programmers liked better than the iPhone?
It's unlikely you could make something better designed. Apple
leaves no room there. So this alternative device probably couldn't
win on general appeal. It would have to win by virtue of some
appeal it had to programmers specifically.One way to appeal to programmers is with software. If you
could think of an application programmers had to have, but that
would be impossible in the circumscribed world of the iPhone,
you could presumably get them to switch.That would definitely happen if programmers started to use handhelds
as development machines—if handhelds displaced laptops the
way laptops displaced desktops. You need more control of a development
machine than Apple will let you have over an iPhone.Could anyone make a device that you'd carry around in your pocket
like a phone, and yet would also work as a development machine?
It's hard to imagine what it would look like. But I've learned
never to say never about technology. A phone-sized device that
would work as a development machine is no more miraculous by present
standards than the iPhone itself would have seemed by the standards
of 1995.My current development machine is a MacBook Air, which I use with
an external monitor and keyboard in my office, and by itself when
traveling. If there was a version half the size I'd prefer it.
That still wouldn't be small enough to carry around everywhere like
a phone, but we're within a factor of 4 or so. Surely that gap is
bridgeable. In fact, let's make it an
RFS. Wanted:
Woman with hammer.Notes[1]
When Google adopted "Don't be evil," they were still so small
that no one would have expected them to be, yet.
[2]
The dictator in the 1984 ad isn't Microsoft, incidentally;
it's IBM. IBM seemed a lot more frightening in those days, but
they were friendlier to developers than Apple is now.[3]
He couldn't even afford a monitor. That's why the Apple
I used a TV as a monitor.[4]
Several people I talked to mentioned how much they liked the
iPhone SDK. The problem is not Apple's products but their policies.
Fortunately policies are software; Apple can change them instantly
if they want to. Handy that, isn't it?Thanks to Sam Altman, Trevor Blackwell, Ross Boucher,
James Bracy, Gabor Cselle,
Patrick Collison, Jason Freedman, John Gruber, Joe Hewitt, Jessica Livingston,
Robert Morris, Teng Siong Ong, Nikhil Pandit, Savraj Singh, and Jared Tame for reading drafts of this.


Want to start a startup? Get funded by
Y Combinator.




April 2001, rev. April 2003(This article is derived from a talk given at the 2001 Franz
Developer Symposium.)
In the summer of 1995, my friend Robert Morris and I
started a startup called
Viaweb.
Our plan was to write
software that would let end users build online stores.
What was novel about this software, at the time, was
that it ran on our server, using ordinary Web pages
as the interface.A lot of people could have been having this idea at the
same time, of course, but as far as I know, Viaweb was
the first Web-based application. It seemed such
a novel idea to us that we named the company after it:
Viaweb, because our software worked via the Web,
instead of running on your desktop computer.Another unusual thing about this software was that it
was written primarily in a programming language called
Lisp. It was one of the first big end-user
applications to be written in Lisp, which up till then
had been used mostly in universities and research labs. [1]The Secret WeaponEric Raymond has written an essay called "How to Become a Hacker,"
and in it, among other things, he tells would-be hackers what
languages they should learn. He suggests starting with Python and
Java, because they are easy to learn. The serious hacker will also
want to learn C, in order to hack Unix, and Perl for system
administration and cgi scripts. Finally, the truly serious hacker
should consider learning Lisp:

Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience
you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make
you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you
never actually use Lisp itself a lot.

This is the same argument you tend to hear for learning Latin. It
won't get you a job, except perhaps as a classics professor, but
it will improve your mind, and make you a better writer in languages
you do want to use, like English.But wait a minute. This metaphor doesn't stretch that far. The
reason Latin won't get you a job is that no one speaks it. If you
write in Latin, no one can understand you. But Lisp is a computer
language, and computers speak whatever language you, the programmer,
tell them to.So if Lisp makes you a better programmer, like he says, why wouldn't
you want to use it? If a painter were offered a brush that would
make him a better painter, it seems to me that he would want to
use it in all his paintings, wouldn't he? I'm not trying to make
fun of Eric Raymond here. On the whole, his advice is good. What
he says about Lisp is pretty much the conventional wisdom. But
there is a contradiction in the conventional wisdom: Lisp will
make you a better programmer, and yet you won't use it.Why not? Programming languages are just tools, after all. If Lisp
really does yield better programs, you should use it. And if it
doesn't, then who needs it?This is not just a theoretical question. Software is a very
competitive business, prone to natural monopolies. A company that

applications. Our horror at that prospect was the single biggest

thing that drove us to start building web apps.At least we know now what it would take to break Apple's lock.

You'd have to get iPhones out of programmers' hands. If programmers

used some other device for mobile web access, they'd start to develop

apps for that instead.How could you make a device programmers liked better than the iPhone?

It's unlikely you could make something better designed. Apple

leaves no room there. So this alternative device probably couldn't

win on general appeal. It would have to win by virtue of some

appeal it had to programmers specifically.One way to appeal to programmers is with software. If you

could think of an application programmers had to have, but that

would be impossible in the circumscribed world of the iPhone,

you could presumably get them to switch.That would definitely happen if programmers started to use handhelds

as development machines—if handhelds displaced laptops the

way laptops displaced desktops. You need more control of a development

machine than Apple will let you have over an iPhone.Could anyone make a device that you'd carry around in your pocket

like a phone, and yet would also work as a development machine?

It's hard to imagine what it would look like. But I've learned

never to say never about technology. A phone-sized device that

would work as a development machine is no more miraculous by present

standards than the iPhone itself would have seemed by the standards

of 1995.My current development machine is a MacBook Air, which I use with

an external monitor and keyboard in my office, and by itself when

traveling. If there was a version half the size I'd prefer it.

That still wouldn't be small enough to carry around everywhere like

a phone, but we're within a factor of 4 or so. Surely that gap is

bridgeable. In fact, let's make it an

RFS. Wanted:

Woman with hammer.Notes[1]

When Google adopted "Don't be evil," they were still so small

that no one would have expected them to be, yet.

[2]

The dictator in the 1984 ad isn't Microsoft, incidentally;

it's IBM. IBM seemed a lot more frightening in those days, but

they were friendlier to developers than Apple is now.[3]

He couldn't even afford a monitor. That's why the Apple

I used a TV as a monitor.[4]

Several people I talked to mentioned how much they liked the

iPhone SDK. The problem is not Apple's products but their policies.

Fortunately policies are software; Apple can change them instantly

if they want to. Handy that, isn't it?Thanks to Sam Altman, Trevor Blackwell, Ross Boucher,

James Bracy, Gabor Cselle,

Patrick Collison, Jason Freedman, John Gruber, Joe Hewitt, Jessica Livingston,

Robert Morris, Teng Siong Ong, Nikhil Pandit, Savraj Singh, and Jared Tame for reading drafts of this.

Want to start a startup? Get funded by

Y Combinator.

April 2001, rev. April 2003(This article is derived from a talk given at the 2001 Franz

Developer Symposium.)

In the summer of 1995, my friend Robert Morris and I

started a startup called

Viaweb.

Our plan was to write

software that would let end users build online stores.

What was novel about this software, at the time, was

that it ran on our server, using ordinary Web pages

as the interface.A lot of people could have been having this idea at the

same time, of course, but as far as I know, Viaweb was

the first Web-based application. It seemed such

a novel idea to us that we named the company after it:

Viaweb, because our software worked via the Web,

instead of running on your desktop computer.Another unusual thing about this software was that it

was written primarily in a programming language called

Lisp. It was one of the first big end-user

applications to be written in Lisp, which up till then

had been used mostly in universities and research labs. [1]The Secret WeaponEric Raymond has written an essay called "How to Become a Hacker,"

and in it, among other things, he tells would-be hackers what

languages they should learn. He suggests starting with Python and

Java, because they are easy to learn. The serious hacker will also

want to learn C, in order to hack Unix, and Perl for system

administration and cgi scripts. Finally, the truly serious hacker

should consider learning Lisp:

Lisp is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience

you will have when you finally get it; that experience will make

you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you

never actually use Lisp itself a lot.

This is the same argument you tend to hear for learning Latin. It

won't get you a job, except perhaps as a classics professor, but

it will improve your mind, and make you a better writer in languages

you do want to use, like English.But wait a minute. This metaphor doesn't stretch that far. The

reason Latin won't get you a job is that no one speaks it. If you

write in Latin, no one can understand you. But Lisp is a computer

language, and computers speak whatever language you, the programmer,

tell them to.So if Lisp makes you a better programmer, like he says, why wouldn't

you want to use it? If a painter were offered a brush that would

make him a better painter, it seems to me that he would want to

use it in all his paintings, wouldn't he? I'm not trying to make

fun of Eric Raymond here. On the whole, his advice is good. What

he says about Lisp is pretty much the conventional wisdom. But

there is a contradiction in the conventional wisdom: Lisp will

make you a better programmer, and yet you won't use it.Why not? Programming languages are just tools, after all. If Lisp

really does yield better programs, you should use it. And if it

doesn't, then who needs it?This is not just a theoretical question. Software is a very

competitive business, prone to natural monopolies. A company that