Paul Graham Is Wrong (2005)

aaronsw.com

63 points·marginalia_nu··12 comments

[2005]

It feels like a disservice both to this post and to Paul Graham to exclude the date for this article. I'd imagine the timing on a post like this is critical context for understanding it, and to both exclude it in the submission (and, frankly the fact that it's only at the bottom of the article, not the top) is less than optimal.

The headline is pure click bait.

Given the author of the post and it’s target, indeed the date is very important (but I appreciate it’s an easy oversight to make)

When he did that thing it made me feel pretty pretty strong about it.

And I see that thing you did there.

Essential Paul Graham context, from earlier in 2005.

https://idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm

This article is very reasonable. I don't understand the jab from the other article

> So let me say it simply - hackers are nothing like painters.

The only thing this tells me is that the author isn’t a hacker but a programmer. The difference is like that between a painter and house painter.

I assume this is satire… But I’m not actually sure.

I assume this comment is satire, but I am not actually sure. And by this comment, I meant this comment not the comment to which I am replying.

He is though.

Just not about everything. Really, when it comes down to it, *mainly" about Lisp. It's onions all the way down.

And sun is bright. And Microsoft is (not) dead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com