On Saturday, 18 August 2012 at 03:03:23 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Why aren't my friends that work or study chemistry writing free small online articles like my programmer&CS friends do? Maybe it's systematic differences in their brain brain? Or it's just more easy to talk about coding compared to botany and chemistry and making engines? Or maybe programmers don't know what they are doing? Or maybe it's just I am not looking in the right places? :-)

I'd also like to know this.

Maybe it's just the size of the audience. There's a very large community of programmers online, but the community of chemists and botanists is not so large, so there's less reason to share online.

Maybe it's because programming is so accessible, allowing younger, more opinionated people to share their thoughts. It's easy to achieve something in programming: just download a compiler/interpreter, follow some online tutorials and you'll have something worth sharing. In Chemistry on the other hand, you really need to go to university before you can start doing something beyond simple experiments with household ingredients.

Maybe it's a delusion of grandeur. A lot of programmers have the idea that they could program up the next big computer game, or make the next Facebook or Twitter. When they inevitably fail, they turn to blogging ("Those who can't, teach"). I've noticed this especially on HackerNews, which is of course filled with people with such delusions. P.S. before anyone gets offended, I'm not suggesting this applies to all programming bloggers!

Maybe it's related to the tendency for programmers to be libertarians, which would also explain the whole open source software movement. They want to share knowledge freely, and online articles would be part of that.

Maybe it's related to the religion thing. Programmers tend to be religious about their languages and practices, and are often challenged on their beliefs, so they'll tend to want to preach their ideas to the masses. This reason likely explains this particular article: there was disagreement on the use of NaNs for initialisation, so Walter wanted to express his take on the matter to the masses. I have done similar things in the past, e.g. blogging about my thoughts on immutable in D.

Maybe it's all those things plus more.

That's my thoughts anyway.

Reply via email to