[mbreese]

I think you're being a little too harsh. This story isn't for programmers. It's for everyone else that thinks the computer is a magic box.

For us, it gives us a story about someone who is trying to learn how to program and about programming culture. I think the author did a pretty good job of taking a month and exploring both the nuts an bolts of programming and the people behind it. Sure, she still couldn't do much at the end of the month, but at least she understood the process to some degree.

The sub-plot about _why is an interesting one. For those of us around during that time, it brings back memories of those frantic days. For the outside world, it is just an interesting story. The naming of _why at the end wasn't really necessary, but it didn't feel too out of place either. It's been long enough that it was conceivable that he may want to have some comment. She may have gone further than I would have to get a message to him, but she didn't cross the line. And it was clear from the article that he has a sufficient barrier around him to protect him from the public.

You're taking the throw-away line about showing up at his house too seriously. She's a journalist... that's what they do - try to get the story. Happily she decided that she didn't need to resort to that to finish the story. I think the line was just added to give a sense of just how deeply he had disappeared.

In our community, we respect _why's wishes and leave him alone. It isn't polite to discuss his private identity. But to the rest of the world, this just isn't a big deal. And I hardly think that he will now be bombarded by publicity. The people who cared about _why know better.

[raganwald]

I opened my comment by praising the exact same things you’re praising, so let’s be sure that we both understand I was criticizing just one or two small things that I care deeply about.

[davesims]

I care deeply about _why and his contributions as well, and I still cringe thinking about how I felt the moment I realized he and his work and his wit were gone from the community forever. The Poignant Guide was my intro to Ruby and still sets the whimsical, slightly surreal tone in the back of my mind for how I think about coding to this day.

But, raganwald, upon reading and re-reading it, I didn't take one bit of "praise" from your comment. Perhaps you didn't mean to set the tone as strongly as you did, but my impression right of the bat with "Let's see now" and onward was that you were being harshly critical.

I'm sorry to see yours as the top comment, because Annie did an extraordinary amount of work and I think you've completely distracted from the essence of the article.

Not only that, I really think you've confused "stalking" with "research." Trying to reach someone for a comment about an article on them hardly qualifies as the former. This was simple journalistic persistence, entirely appropriate, and clearly she backed off "hunting a man down." Many if not most other journalists would have gone further to get the quote or create more drama, and Annie apparently got deep enough into the ethic and general tone of the Ruby community to know when enough was enough.

It was an excellent article, very sympathetic to the Ruby community, well-informed and enlightening, and I'm sorry to see that your comments here have caused others "not to read" it.

Annie Lowery did a lot of hard work -- she learned to program as part of the research for crying out loud! She deserves better recognition than this.

[raganwald]

my impression right of the bat with "Let's see now" and onward was that you were being harshly critical.

I was being harshly critical of calling the man at work and naming him. I also wrote:

The article spends pages talking about _why and the author’s relationship with _why’s work. Great. It spends a page talking about _why’s desire for anonymity and reclusive nature. Good. It talks about _why’s “infosuicide” and notes that it happened shortly after he was “outed.” Fine.

I mentioned the things I liked and said so. What you don’t seem to like is the lack of “balance,” as if given that I spent a few paragraphs talking about the stuff I didn’t like, I should spend ten or twenty paragraphs about the stuff I liked. But my feelings about the things that I liked were just that I liked them. You have stronger feelings about the things that you liked, so you write your comment in accordance with your feelings.

I am not writing a book review for the NYT, and neither are you, that’s the beauty of the forum. I am obliged to be polite, to avoid name calling and other poisonous behaviour, but I am also obliged to—as the saying goes—sit down at the keyboard and open a vein.

[davesims]

Sure, not a book review for NYT, but it is the top comment on HN, which has the unfortunate consequence of being the first impression a lot of people had of an article that had a lot of hard, thoughtful work put into it.

It also caused some to actually not read the article, and that's what drew me out. Annie's work here deserved a better first impression from the HN community, and I think anyone who has an interest in _why would benefit from reading it. The anonymity thing was a sidebar at best.

[raganwald]

I feel for you. I have felt the same way. Not so long ago, someone resubmitted an old essay of mine about coffee machines and open source.

In that essay, I called myself a small-s socialist.

What do you suppose was the top comment on the HN discussion? A long diatribe about someone’s pet subject, Libertarianism, which generated more than half of the ensuing comments.

It seems that on Hacker News, one man’s signal is another man’s noise.

[davesims]

Well said, thanks raganwald!

Being a writer myself, I'm sensitive (probably overly) to the amount of work that goes into a piece like that. The fact that Annie made herself learn Ruby and get deep enough into the specifics of Matz, _why, dhh and the whole Ruby mythology I think needs to be encouraged. Not a lot of writers take that amount of care and time to understand their subject the way she did. It was good journalism.

[brianpan]

Getting off-topic (although, I think we're already there)- I have been finding HN discussions harder to navigate lately. I still miss seeing the post voting scores.

I don't remember if how the comment thread display has changed, but it's getting ridiculous. People respond to the top comment because anything lower will be ignored. This top "thread" is taking up 80% of page.

I understand that this isn't supposed to be Reddit and I'm supposed to work a little harder to digest the information, but I find it very unlikely that people are going to read this entire comment page and find the signal in the noise.

I came to HN after reading the article and I'm not finding the discussion I was hoping for.

EDIT: Maybe what HN needs is an enhancement suite like RES.

[duncanbojangles]

It would help me tremendously if HN offered the option to "fold" comments and children of those comments like on Reddit. I do this often to get past the meme threads and onto the real meat and potatoes. But, I think that may be outside the scope of HN's style or design of the interface.

[Terretta]

> mentioned the things I liked and said so

Great. Fine.

// See, when used as one word responses, they do not indicate actual appreciation, they are dismissive.

[droithomme]

_why is no longer a public figure. Publishing where he works and lives is not journalism, it's public gloating over her primitive stalking skills.

[mbreese]

I think we agree about most things here... in my initial reading of your comment it seemed to paint the entire article negatively. You just criticized one particular aspect... a lot and perhaps that how I got that initial impression.

I wanted to express that talking about _why's identity wasn't the central part of the story. Anyone just reading your comment might get that impression.

I really just don't think the naming of names at this point is that big of a deal. Anyone who really wanted to know his name could have found him. Anyone who was in the public eye and who has decided to leave it has had to deal with the same issues. And while we don't discuss his name, out of courtesy and respect, I don't think she crossed the line.

[thomaslangston]

I don't think he was harsh enough.

I think you're too forgiving of some really awful behavior. Writing a beautiful article or being motivated to get the story doesn't excuse it. The fact that most of the readers of the article won't care doesn't either.

She did cross the line. I would be furious if someone I didn't want to talk to (and who knew it) did what she did. The fact she published his private information leads me to believe no consideration was really ever given to how _why felt.

The one line about deciding not to go to his house didn't sway that belief. The decision could have been made to avoid liability in a potential harassment lawsuit as easily as concern over _why's feelings.

[redthrowaway]

What you decry is standard journalistic fare. Tracking down a central figure in your article is a mark of investigative journalism. The individual's desires for privacy do not, by that fact alone, afford them the right to never have anyone try and contact them.

We respect his privacy both because of his contributions, and because his feelings are clear. That does not mean everyone else on Earth is obliged to.

[MaysonL]

We respect his privacy both because of his contributions, and because his feelings are clear. That does not mean everyone else on Earth is obliged to.

They're obviously not obliged too, but when they don't, they're acting in a shitty fashion, and calling them out on it is definitely worthwhile.

[droithomme]

Trying to contact him is one thing. Publishing the current location and employer of a peaceful person who wishes to remain anonymous and private in an article, for no legitimate reason, is totally different. Surely you see the difference? Or do you.

[newman314]

Tracking someone down because you suspect wrongdoing is not the same as someone who as far as I can tell has done nothing but contribute to the Ruby community.

It's all about context.

[ohyes]

I am a programmer and I think of my computer as a magic box. It has very specific principles, but is basically magical in nature. The mystery of all of the things that I could possibly do with it is what keeps me programming. I like to think that there are others who share this intuition.