"The core idea of the original is that hackers are like painters."
No it's not. This is wrong for the same reason that idlewords is wrong when he says that the thesis of H&P is:
"Of all the different types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike. What hackers and painters have in common is that they're both makers."
This isn't a thesis that pg is trying to prove. Rather, it's a source of ideas. That is,
"Because hackers are makers rather than scientists, the right place to look for metaphors is not in the sciences, but among other kinds of makers. What else can painting teach us about hacking?"
The essay doesn't even identify what those ideas are, let alone try to disprove them. All he's attacking is the source of the ideas. That's like saying Newton's theory of gravity is wrong because sitting under apple trees is gay.
Yes it is. Because that's what it says, as opposed to what you'd like to believe it said. In fact you quoted its fundamental point right there -
"Of all the different types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike. What hackers and painters have in common is that they're both makers."
How is this not equating hackers and painters? How is the rest of the verbiage not 'a thesis he is trying to prove' but rather 'a source of ideas'. The writing directly contradicts what you are saying.
"X and Y are both instances of Z, so let's use Y and Z as a source of ideas about X."
This pattern is basically repeated in every single paragraph, e.g.
* The reputations of hackers probably have a large random component introduced by fashion, as happens with artists.
* In hacking as with painting, itβs best to start by sketching
* Both software and paintings are intended for a human audience, so both hackers must have empathy to do good work.
The essay was written for the benefit of hackers, so if you want to attack the ideas in the essay, a 'good' argument might be that hacking does not require empathy. As opposed to saying that the idea that the best paintings were done between 1430 and 1500 is just some guy's opinion, which adds nothing.
Now if you wanted to challenge the ideas about art as a way of challenging the ideas about hacking then that would at least be interesting, but just nitpicking about art history is lame.
I'd like to challenge it in the way the essay challenged it, that is that the comparison is fatuous wanking. A 'good' argument to the contrary might involve, well, a good argument to the contrary. Rather than fatuous wanking.
No it's not. This is wrong for the same reason that idlewords is wrong when he says that the thesis of H&P is:
"Of all the different types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike. What hackers and painters have in common is that they're both makers."
This isn't a thesis that pg is trying to prove. Rather, it's a source of ideas. That is,
"Because hackers are makers rather than scientists, the right place to look for metaphors is not in the sciences, but among other kinds of makers. What else can painting teach us about hacking?"
The essay doesn't even identify what those ideas are, let alone try to disprove them. All he's attacking is the source of the ideas. That's like saying Newton's theory of gravity is wrong because sitting under apple trees is gay.