OT: Hierarchies [was Re: Possibly better loop construct, also labels+goto important and on the fly compiler idea.]

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 17:22:03 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM,  <rurpy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Regarding esr's "smart-questions", although I acknowledge it has useful
>> advice, I have always found it elitist and abrasive.  I wish someone
>> would rewrite it without the "we are gods" attitude.
> 
> I find it actually pretty appropriate. The attitude comes from a
> hierarchy in which we are not at the top - but neither is esr. 

Hmmm, well it's not clear to me that ESR doesn't consider himself at the 
top of any hacker hierarchy. I'm sure that he considers that there are 
those who know more than him with respect to some specific technology or 
other, and I'm sure he doesn't think geeks fall into organisation charts 
with nice neat lines between those who report to whom. But I also think 
he doesn't have the false modesty to put himself anywhere but in the top 
"elite geek hacker" category.

[...]
> We're in a hierarchy (or actually
> several independent and unrelated ones), and being at the top means (in
> the open source world) being everyone's servant; and the people at the
> top simply don't have time to be _everyone's_ servant personally, so
> they need some sous-servants to help them to help people.

An interesting thought, but I wouldn't put it that way. It seems to me 
that a better description would be that geeks tend to be big believers in 
"giving back", or perhaps something akin to "Whiteman's Burden" that 
Kipling believed in, the idea that those who have have a duty to those 
who don't. Of course, the whole colonialism thing is out of favour these 
days, and truth be told the idea of bringing "civilization to the 
savages" was more honoured in the breach than in the observance even in 
Kipling's day. But the idea that those who have more than others (be that 
skills, knowledge or possessions) have a duty towards those who don't is 
not a bad philosophy to live be.

If we must have hierarchies -- and alas, Homo sapiens being as it is, we 
do -- it is better for those at the top to have a duty to serve as well 
as privileges. That's what Heinlein was getting at with the (often 
misunderstood) "Starship Troopers". Did it glorify military service? Yes 
it did, but it also emphasised the *service* part. If you want the 
privilege of citizenship, they you have to earn it by first serving.

But I think that *servant* is not the right description for the 
relationship you are talking about. That implies that (say) I could 
demand ESR's service at any time, or at least at any time within pre-
defined boundaries (even servants get days off), and that he would have 
no right to refuse service. But that's not the case. He is a volunteer 
who is free to say No at any time, and the quickest way to get him to say 
No would be to treat him as a servant.


-- 
Steven