Dear Lisp hackers,

Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?
I am finding it quite a challenge to convince a friend to use lisp in
a start-up, and a big factor is ease of recruiting. Does anyone have
experience recruiting in this area of the world?  Or even if you do
not recruit, it would help me get a better feel if you could reply/
email me if you are from the area.

Best regards,
Red Daly

On Sep 15, 1:15=A0pm, reddaly <redd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Lisp hackers,
>
> Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?
> I am finding it quite a challenge to convince a friend to use lisp in
> a start-up, and a big factor is ease of recruiting. Does anyone have
> experience recruiting in this area of the world? =A0Or even if you do
> not recruit, it would help me get a better feel if you could reply/
> email me if you are from the area.
>
> Best regards,
> Red Daly

This was posted back in January on fa.haskell:

http://groups.google.com/group/fa.haskell/msg/17ee6759ba3bb38b?hl=3Den

I'm sure the same would be true for Lisp.

Larry Coleman wrote:
> On Sep 15, 1:15 pm, reddaly <redd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Lisp hackers,
>>
>> Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?
>> I am finding it quite a challenge to convince a friend to use lisp in
>> a start-up, and a big factor is ease of recruiting. Does anyone have
>> experience recruiting in this area of the world?  Or even if you do
>> not recruit, it would help me get a better feel if you could reply/
>> email me if you are from the area.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Red Daly
> 
> This was posted back in January on fa.haskell:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/fa.haskell/msg/17ee6759ba3bb38b?hl=en
> 
> I'm sure the same would be true for Lisp.

I am sure you would be wrong. When CliniSys ran an ad for Lisp 
programmers several Lisp gods responded, including one who had helped 
develop a commercial Lisp. This was before the black hole that is ITA, 
but apparently Dawkings was right -- the black hole is leaking developers.

kxo

-- 

http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf

On Sep 15, 9:24=A0pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Larry Coleman wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 1:15 pm, reddaly <redd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dear Lisp hackers,
>
> >> Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?
> >> I am finding it quite a challenge to convince a friend to use lisp in
> >> a start-up, and a big factor is ease of recruiting. Does anyone have
> >> experience recruiting in this area of the world? =A0Or even if you do
> >> not recruit, it would help me get a better feel if you could reply/
> >> email me if you are from the area.
>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Red Daly
>
> > This was posted back in January on fa.haskell:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/fa.haskell/msg/17ee6759ba3bb38b?hl=3Den
>
> > I'm sure the same would be true for Lisp.
>
> I am sure you would be wrong. When CliniSys ran an ad for Lisp
> programmers several Lisp gods responded, including one who had helped
> develop a commercial Lisp. This was before the black hole that is ITA,
> but apparently Dawkings was right -- the black hole is leaking developers=
..
>
> kxo
>
> --
>
> http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laugh=
ingstock/115923141782?ref=3Dnf

You've lost me here. Are you saying that there aren't even 20
programmers who would be available for a Lisp job?

reddaly wrote:
> Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?

by the way, why is this model of "everyone in the same physical office" 
still so popular? Maybe for other types of business it may have some 
advantages, but for software development?!

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 10:15:38 -0700 (PDT), reddaly <reddaly@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Dear Lisp hackers,
>
>Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?
>I am finding it quite a challenge to convince a friend to use lisp in
>a start-up, 

It would be better if your friend stays away from "friends" like you. 

A.L.

Giovanni Gigante <giov@cidoc.iuav.it> writes:

> reddaly wrote:
>> Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?
>
> by the way, why is this model of "everyone in the same physical
> office" still so popular? Maybe for other types of business it may
> have some advantages, but for software development?!

It is absolutely necessary to dampen the fabulous productivity
increases we would otherwise get with computers.  (That, plus the help
of irc, usenet, the web and youtube).

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__

On Sep 16, 4:45=A0pm, Giovanni Gigante <g...@cidoc.iuav.it> wrote:
> reddaly wrote:
> > Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?
>
> by the way, why is this model of "everyone in the same physical office"
> still so popular? Maybe for other types of business it may have some
> advantages, but for software development?!

While I agree that constant physical presence in the same office is
superfluous for software development, seeing and talking in person to
each other from time to time is still unmatched for discussing ideas
and forming a cohesive group. Yes, there's e-mail, chat, voip, etc.
but it's not the same thing. Time zones matter, too: if you work while
I sleep and vice-versa, we're not going to collaborate as if we were
seated one in front of the other.

That said, I will gladly accept remote Lisp jobs from any continent :D

Alessio

Alessio Stalla wrote:
 > Time zones matter, too:
 > [...]
 > That said, I will gladly accept remote Lisp jobs from any continent :D


I read somewhere that erik naggum used to live (in norway) synced to a 
US timezone for this reason.
Lisp jobs demands high standards :-)

Giovanni Gigante <giov@cidoc.iuav.it> writes:

> reddaly wrote:
>> Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?
>
> by the way, why is this model of "everyone in the same physical
> office" still so popular? Maybe for other types of business it may
> have some advantages, but for software development?!

Don't know.  We gave up our office.  We just meet up once a week since
we all live in the same city.  Meeting face to face does help build
group cohesion.  Without it, people get lazy and stop caring about what
they're doing (most people that is).

J Kenneth King wrote:
> Giovanni Gigante <giov@cidoc.iuav.it> writes:
> 
>> reddaly wrote:
>>> Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?
>> by the way, why is this model of "everyone in the same physical
>> office" still so popular? Maybe for other types of business it may
>> have some advantages, but for software development?!
> 
> Don't know.  We gave up our office.  We just meet up once a week since
> we all live in the same city.  Meeting face to face does help build
> group cohesion.  Without it, people get lazy and stop caring about what
> they're doing (most people that is).

People are social creatures.  Face-to-face communication prevents much 
miscommunication.  The immediacy of physical presence is wonderful for 
focusing attention.  Verbal interaction is often more efficient than 
written; timely feedback tunes the connection.  Being transient, 
spoken words generally do not have to be chosen as carefully.  Phones 
are lossy.

That said, if you're on a roll, interruption of any kind can totally 
destroy concentration.  Electronic communications are easily disabled 
by the recipient.


- Daniel

On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 10:16:02 -0400, J Kenneth King <james@agentultra.com> wrote:
>Giovanni Gigante <giov@cidoc.iuav.it> writes:
>>reddaly wrote:
>>>Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?
>>
>> by the way, why is this model of "everyone in the same physical
>> office" still so popular? Maybe for other types of business it
>> may have some advantages, but for software development?!
>
> Don't know.  We gave up our office.  We just meet up once a week
> since we all live in the same city.  Meeting face to face does
> help build group cohesion.  Without it, people get lazy and stop
> caring about what they're doing (most people that is).

It often turns out that working in the same workplace has a faster
turn-around time for quickie questions like ``Hey guys, I'm about to
scratch `foo' and rewrite it on top of `bar'.  Does that sound like
a good idea?''.

My (admittedly rather limited) experience so far suggests that this
sort of question is a strong factor behind group cohesion and the
concept of `code ownership'.  Being able to ask the `owner' of a bit
of code directly means that one gets faster response times and often
gets _more_ replies than through other, less conventional and more
asynchronous means (like chat, or email).

My current team is quite diverse in the geographical sense, with
some people working from Asia and, others from Europe.  I often get
a _lot_ done by being with 2-3 people in the same place, but there
is always an increase in the level and number of `distractions' from
`real work' when we do that.

My best guess is that there *are* limits to what can be achieved
with remote-only work, but I cannot really pin-point the precise
cause of this.

Regards,
Giorgos

If you are working on embedded applications, you might need a fully
outfitted (read: $1,000,000.00) lab to provide the inputs and analyze
the outputs.  It might not be possible to monitor resuls remotely, nor
to move all the cables around and share the lab with others remotely.

At least that is the curse upon me...

> From: reddaly <redd...@gmail.com>
> Dear Lisp hackers,

My feelings about that term "hacker" have pingponged over the years.
Ed McGuire convinced me (circa 1970) that we were all "hackers", as
a good thing. Then the Federal government re-defined the word to
mean people who trespass into computer systems without permission,
and usually maliciously. I've re-thought the origin of the term
"hacker" many times over the years, sometimes thinking it a good
term for what we do with what is now called "agile" software
development, other times not liking the term.

The origin was people who use a machete to hack their way through a
jungle, thereby blazing a trail. Thus if there's no obvious and
approved way to get from point A to point B, hacking with a machete
accomplishes the goal. By stretched metaphor, writing new kinds of
software, using existing tools in ways that the tool-makers never
envisonned, and might even think of as "improper" use of their fine
tools, such as using a chisel or nail-file as a makeshift
screwdriver when no proper screwdriver can be found, or using duct
tape to connect an air purifier inside the Apollo 11 spacecraft
(never mind using the propulsion on the Lunar [Excursion] Module to
put the command module into Earth-intersecting orbit). Certainly
using EXT:SUB-PROCESS with lynx or curl under it to WebScape
probably wasn't the proper use that the inventors of lynx or curl
respectively intended, likewise screen readers for the blind.

Recently I've come to realize (at very long last) a subtle
distinction between hacking vegitation with a machete and what I
actually do when writing very-novel/innovative computer software:

If I actually hired a billion monkeys to type randomly on
typewriters, and Bob Newhart sat there watching to see what they
are typing, and deletes anything that isn't want he wants, that
would be analagous to hacking away the forest to make a path. But
what I do is more analagous to what people do when they actually
lay pavement to convert a dirt path to a paved road so that cars
don't get stuck in the mod. I take a process that was just a dirt
path, traversed manually, typing keystrokes directly from keyboard
through Macintosh and VT100 emulator and modems and phone line and
ssh and shell into lynx, and convert it to the same thing running
automatically, where my **program** generates the keystrokes to
feed to lynx.

Likewise there's a joke that when somebody carves marble to make a
"bust" of somebody, what they do is chop away all the parts that
don't like the person they want the end-result to look like, and
what's left (not chopped away) is the resultant sculpture. Now
physically indeed sculpturers *do* chop away the "negative space",
leaving the "bust" as positive space as the net result. But I don't
write software like that. I don't start with a complete list of all
computer programs like what I want, unit-test them all, discarding
the versions that fail unit tests, and whatever is left is my
finished product. There's *some* element of hacking away the
negative space in Darwinian evolution and scientific research, and
software programming *does* have a major element of trying various
ideas to see what works best, discarding the ones that don't work,
and then what's left as the most-workable idea is the end result.
But most of the day-to-day work is *not* hacking away the negative
space, it's directly **constructing** the positive space, by seeing
what data I have as input (actual input, or output from previous
step used as input of the next step I need to write now), imagining
what I want next, choosing what function would accomplish that
data-processing step to convert what I have into what I want next,
configuring the parameters to that function, typing the code,
proofreading my mistakes (that part is *not* quite like hacking
away the mistakes, it's actually seeing the mistakes and
delibeately correcting them), testing the line of code, and if it
doesn't work I do **not** revert to something else at random,
instead I figure out what I did wrong and deliberately fix my
mistake by making a deliberate edit of what I did. So most of what
I do is not at all analagous to hacking away the negative space
with a machete and seeing what's left.

Now there are "genetic algorithms" that really do generate (at
random) a large sample of possible programs, unit-test each,
discard the mistakes, keep and replicate and mutate the
not-so-failing programs, and thereby use a Darwinian style of true
"hacking" (natural selection). But that is *not* what **I** do
99.999% of the time when writing computer software, so I'm *not*
primarily a "hacker" by what I do.

So then if "hacker" is outright wrong by emphasizing genetic
algorithms instead of direct composition, what term *is* the best
slang term for what we do??

I came up with an idea a few weeks ago when came to the
positive/negative space hacking/construction insight, but now I've
forgotten what term I decided on. Maybe I tweeted it, but the tweet
search engine only goes back a few days, so it wouldn't find it.
Maybe I wrote something longer than 140 characters in
TinyURL.Com/TooBus, will look there now ... nah, only one instance
of "hack" and that was in regard to a claim (IMO absurd) that
"hackers" spammed e-mail containing links to tweets by the Georgian
protester, and recipients of that spam clicked on the links enough
to cause the DDoS attack against Twitter that crashed them for
about 1.5 days and has caused them overload many times since then.

<lament>Having a life-long memorization disability is a pain many
        many times, including now.
        </lament>

Checked Google Groups for mention of "hacker" and "uh3t", and I see
that as recently as 2009.Mar.08 I was still using the word "hacker"
as a good word for super-experts who write the underlying
utilities/tools that the ordinary appliation programmer would use.
I was saying that only the super-hacker would ever need to build
circular structure, and maybe occasionally a regular hacker or
tool-builder, the rest of us application programmers would just use
those tools which *internally* make *temporary* use of circular
lists. Hence a reference-count storage system would be quite good
enough in practice, no need for mark-and-sweep garbage collector.

So anyway, it was sometime since March when I finally realized the
negative-space distinction hence what I do is *not* properly
analagous to hacking a trail with a machete.

> Does anyone have experience recruiting lisp hackers in the bay area?

No, but there aren't any employers willing to hire any of us
unemployed Lisp software programmers (even the super-imaginative
ones like me who would have been called "hackers" but now that term
is rejected and I can't remember my better term), so the issue is
rather moot. I've heard complaints from recruiters that it's just
too hard to find competant Lisp software programmers so they tell
their employers we aren't available and they should do the project
in some other language where more programmers are available. But
that's a lie. I've been available, and it's been known that I've
been available, since 1991 when my last paid Lisp job ended, and in
all these 18 years not one person has offered me any Lisp
programming work all that time, and I'm sure there are other people
in this are who would also love to get paid for writing Lisp
software, so it should be *easy* to find a team to write Lisp
software if they'd just look in the obvious places to find us. They
don't *have* to actively **recruit**. Just post a job ad,
cross-posted between comp.lang.lisp and ba.jobs.offered, and watch
us respond! But they never even try to find us.

> I am finding it quite a challenge to convince a friend to use
> lisp in a start-up,

What kind of application would your "friend" like to get
implemented, and you believe Lisp would be a good choice of
language for it? (Note, I also use PHP or Java as appropriate when
Lisp isn't the best choice for some particular component of the
application. My upcoming TinyURL.Com/NewEco will use a combination
of PHP and CMUCL components, communicating between them using a
public-key cryptosystem for both signing and encryption. And one
component to run on a locally-available MS-Windows system, where
Java is available but neither Lisp nor PHP is available, will use
Java, compiled on Unix then uploaded to the Web then downloaded to
MS-Windows to execute, because the MS-Windows system doesn't have
the Java compiler.)

> and a big factor is ease of recruiting.

Just say here what kind of application you want implemented, and
several of us will offer our services if we think we can do the
job. To be honest, be sure to cross-post to ba.jobs.offered also,
in case somebody useful isn't reading this newsgroup.

<slightlyOffTopic>I have a list of more than a hundred Web sites
                  that are supposed to list jobs available, and not
                  *one* of them is generating valid HTML or XHTML
                  as judged by the W3C validation site. If you're
                  curious, let me know, or just feed the output
                  from your favorite Web-based job-board to
                  <http://validator.w3.org/> and see for yourself.
                  </slightlyOffTopic>

Hmm, as I'm just about to submit this article to our NNTP server,
I'm starting to remember some of my thoughts about a replacement
term for what we really do which isn't hacking, but I still can't
remember which word I chose as best. I'm thinking of referring to
myself (professionally, my "hat" or "role"), and what I do,
respectively as (each prefixed by "software"):
 innovator  / innovat[e|ing]
 inventor   / invent[ing]
 designer   / design[ing]
 tinkerer   / tinker[ing]  (when I re-use a design pattern by copy+paste+edit)
 abstracter / abstract[ing]  (when I refactor a design pattern into fun/macro)
Anybody read my mind or re-think this line of thinking and come up
with either the term I had weeks ago or another at least as good?)

> From: Alessio Stalla <alessiosta...@gmail.com>
> While I agree that constant physical presence in the same office is
> superfluous for software development, seeing and talking in person to
> each other from time to time is still unmatched for discussing ideas
> and forming a cohesive group. Yes, there's e-mail, chat, voip, etc.
> but it's not the same thing.

I agree. When I worked at Stanford, from time to time our
supervisor would call us programmers into his office to
group-brainstorm something he couldn't design all on his own. We'd
work out the basic design, and primary interfaces between modules
in support of that design, and then we programmers would sit by
ourselves actually writing the code for our particular part of the
design.

But on the other hand, sometimes talking live wasn't optimum, we'd
be stumped for an idea, and waste a half hour deadending before we
finally just gave up, then a few hours or days later one of us
would come up with a solution for our problem and e-mail it to the
rest of us and we'd be progressing once again. We had really crufty
e-mail system on VM/CMS. Nowadays with Macintoshes and other decent
window-system machines, e-mail would be more effective than it was
20 years ago, so face-to-face brainstorming wouldn't be so much the
clear winner. And now (since 1995) with the Web, we don't have just
e-mail, we have structured documents we can easily compose for
display to others. And now with WikiMedia, we can possibly
collaboratively edit a specification document faster than we can
work in separate Web spaces. And now with Twitter we might be able
to shoot quick ideas at each other even more efficiently than
e-mail. And when I get NewEco implemented, with the capability of
converting software projects into piece-work within an overall
well-structured framework, perhaps the very nature of software
teams will drastically change.

> Time zones matter, too: if you work while I sleep and vice-versa,
> we're not going to collaborate as if we were seated one in front
> of the other.

Actually if there are opposite time zones that may be an advantage
instead of a disadvantage. While I'm awake, I do one shift of
productive work, as many different things as I can accomplish
before I'm too sleepy to do any more, and I *know* you won't be
constantly interrupting me and making my lose my train of thought
because YOU ARE ASLEEP NOW. Then while I'm asleep, you are looking
over my work, writing feedback, and knowing that you are working
from a stable set of stuff I did, that won't change out from under
you as you make comments, because I'M ASLEEP. Then tomorrow I wake
up, and start reviewing your comments, making changes. This daily
back-and-forth supervisor/worker alternation may turn out to be
very good for avoiding distractions and each person having a stable
set of other-person's-work to study at least for one work shift.
Perhaps ideally the supervisor, the tool builder, and the application
programmer, should be located in successive time zones, to enforce
this REP^H^H^HSTI loop:
  Supervise: Give feedback on yesterday's work, and say what use-cases to do next.
  ToolBuilder: Build all the necessary low-level tools for those use-cases.
  Implementor: Use those tools to actually implement today's use-cases.

Time zones (in rotation):  Japan/China/Australia  ->  Europe  ->  America

Sorry India, you folks do beta testing out of phase with the others, OK?

> That said, I will gladly accept remote Lisp jobs from any continent

Would you be willing to spend some of your otherwise spare time
doing piece-work (each work unit taking less than 7.5 minutes to
complete) software programming (and also pre-software design, and
post-software beta-testing, and writing documentation, etc.), not
getting paid money, instead getting paid labor-time credits that
can then be spent directly through the system to hire others to
work for you?  See http://TinyURL.Com/NewEco for many details.
Lots more notes I've written offline as crude notes, so if you show
interest and ask questions about aspects not covered by online
documents I can fetch the appropriate offline crude notes and clean
them up a little and put them online for you to read.

Alessio Stalla <alessiostalla@gmail.com> writes:

> and forming a cohesive group. Yes, there's e-mail, chat, voip, etc.
> but it's not the same thing. 

I've been working on various ASIC design teams which spans many
geographical regions as the competence tends to be spread across the
globe. In the past we used to have weekly meetings etc. using a bad
speaker phone and it was quite frustrating.

Now I work for a company which makes video-conferencing equipment and
has a lot of infrastructure for communication over video. Using a
Telepresence system like the one illustrated here:
http://www.tandberg.com/ makes it a different experience. 1080p video,
clear audio and sharing powerpoint presentations, as well as source
code over video makes it much more productive.


Petter
-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> writes:

> It often turns out that working in the same workplace has a faster
> turn-around time for quickie questions like ``Hey guys, I'm about to
> scratch `foo' and rewrite it on top of `bar'.  Does that sound like
> a good idea?''.

I freqeuently do that on video, even if they are in the same building
as I am. It's faster than running down the stairs...

Petter
-- 
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 04:35:45 -0700, seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org
(Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:

>Then the Federal government re-defined the word ["hacker"] to
>mean people who trespass into computer systems without permission,
>and usually maliciously. 

You mean to say the ignorant Press redefined the term.  The even more
ignorant goobermint simply reacted to the new widespread usage.

George