Comment by SiVal | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SiVal | Hacker News Reader

I say the emphasis should be on technical accuracy, not on the affected hacker slang adopted by some silly people. There are a lot of different sorts of people who love working with computers. Some are intensely mathematical, some are nerds who are driven by intellectual challenge (think of the NASA engineers with skinny ties and slide rules who loved nothing more than to tear into an impossible engineering challenge with lives on the line), some are annoying hipsters for whom hacking is some sort of fashion statement complete with special slang to, like everything else, show how hip they are, some are malicious cracker vermin who brag about their toxicity, some are conscientious craftsmen who take great pride in doing good work.... The thing they almost all have in common when they talk to each other is that they know the real names of things and they are more precise in their use of technical terms than the general public. If you don't want to embarrass yourself with the dialog, first priority is factual correctness.

May I suggest that self-taught practitioners of the art might not know the names for things? Names tend to be a function of classrooms and degree programs. They might know a way to do something which has a name without knowing that name because they independently recreated it out of necessity.

Or, failing that, perhaps they used something before it had a name which made it popular. See also: design patterns and anyone who predates their popularity.

Classrooms and degrees aren't required, but significant exposure to the words of experts is almost always a prerequisite to genuine expertise. If you don't know what experts have to say about a topic, it's very unlikely that you are an expert. If you do know what they have to say, you know how they say it.

If the OP is interested in portraying "hackers" who aren't highly skilled, having them misuse terminology would be a good approach, for example portraying a later mastermind in his early, naive days. But portraying a world-class expert who uses hacker slang but can't get the technical terminology right would be a classic Hollywood error.

One of the brightest people I know taught himself a good deal of what he knows. Nonetheless, he is a very precise speaker on these topics. He learned the language along with the topic. And he uses it to communicate -- exceptionally clearly, by the way.

The language is an important component of functioning effectively in the domain. And it serves as a thinking aid, as well; it's very difficult to manipulate complex fields without the use of abstractions. Language is part and parcel of those abstractions.

I am in agreement with SiVal. Accurate communication is a clear measure.

Perhaps somewhat akin with the current "brogramming" fettish, one... "Hollywoodism" is to apply some sort of slangy techspeak "bravado" to "elite hackers".

That's B.S.

P.S. I should add that "taught himself" means a combination of reading, doing, and collaborating with others in his fields of interest.

He might have entered some of those fields kind of sideways, but once people within them observed and learned that he really knows what he is doing and what he is talking about, that doesn't matter. (And that he quickly and thoroughly learns things he doesn't already know, when needed. Or... as often as not, before "needed", because of his driving interest.)

i agree with most of what i've seen here and am VERY thankful for the responses but there is something to the language of coding that is extremely specific that i'm looking for.

to the person who uses: LAMP servers, python script,ubuntu machines, etc. these items are matter of fact tools for what they do and are as sexy or dramatic as a hammer, saw or vice grip to a construction worker BUT to people being invited into a world they're not familiar with they become a welcome mat on the floor to a journey.

Think about the best military movies you've seen. Do they "dumb down" the technology? In my experience, no.

It's accurately portrayed. At the same time, it's not the center of the story. That is still the human component.

They spent a lot of time/effort in "Saving Private Ryan" getting the sound of the M1 clip ejection right. But nobody ever comments on or explains this in the movie.

Veterans watching the movie said they "got that right".

(I'm not saying that "Saving Private Ryan" doesn't bend reality in some ways for the sake of the story. But they didn't... have Rambo take out a platoon with his bowie knife.)

("Band of Brothers" is another good choice -- the mini-series precursor to "Saving Private Ryan".

Then there are, for example, some of the older, somewhat spartan but impactfully understated British films, whose titles I can't think of right now. It was actually films like these that I was thinking more of, when I started writing this, before those contemporary items came to mind.)

If done properly, such portrayals can convey a quiet, authoritative air that is actually more convincing than some of the "explained"... "exaggeration" and/or simplification that exists in many movies including some big budget production.

Aiding this might be spending some time actually explaining these things, in some depth, to the actors, so that they can portray them with some understanding, rather than simply parroting the script.

Of course, you might have to convince/sell a potential purchaser/producer on this idea, to help the technical content go down.

P.S. I should probably shut up, now.

But, I think there is something to an accurate portrayal that is the richer for not being too self-conscious (on screen).

P.P.S. A few random films, with different topics, where this might apply, that I'm happening to think of upon this unplanned attempt to come up with some relevant examples.

"China Syndrome" (although I'm a bit hesitant, having only seen this with commercials and while somewhat distracted)

"Traffic" -- the older, European mini-series version, from the 1980s

Watch "Eat Drink Man Woman" and see how much of a feel for 90's (upper classs-ish) Taipei you walk away with. (Although, admittedly, as I understand it Ang Lee brings a certain outside or cross-cultural perspective to it from his having spent significant time abroad.)

There are probably many better examples, but that's what my tired mind can dredge up, at the moment. And I think this represents a variety of things where authenticity enhances rather than confuses or degrades.

P.P.P.S. See P.S., above. ;-)

I also meant to say that you may face in part what budding programmers face: Find that 1% of books and materials that are really a class above in their clarity -- and, being so effective, often in their brevity, as well.

I don't have a list at hand and may not be the one to provide one. But... you might look around and cross reference comments to find the "quintessential" works on these topics.

One exceptional book can be worth (more than) a car load of the alternatives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com