1. 9
  1. 6

    If you enjoy this kind of interviews, I would wholeheartedly recommend Siebel’s Coders at Work. Some really in-depth conversations.

    1. 4

      Great questions. Interestingly the answers of Guido Van Rossum are consistently the least interesting/insightful from the bunch.

      1. 1

        I got the feeling he was trolling the interviewer (see for example “most important skill” and “best programming/non-programming related book”). Perhaps he felt the questions were low effort, so the answers should be the same?

        1. 1

          I would hope that his answer about what makes some programmers better than others, “Genetic differet [sic] brain structure,” is not a serious answer. Still, it would fit with the general disappointment that I’ve felt when I’ve interacted with him. Personally, I think that he was serious with his replies, and he really is the kind of person he appears to be.

          As a musician, I think that having Philip Glass as a lone musical favorite is a red flag.

      2. 1

        The most interesting part of this is the list of “great programmers” from 2006:

        • Linus Torvalds
        • Dave Thomas
        • David Heinemeier Hansson
        • Steve Yegge
        • Peter Norvig
        • Guido Van Rossum
        • Bjarne Stroustrup
        • James Gosling
        • Tim Bray

        It’s interesting that e.g. Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson weren’t on the list (or anyone else from Bell Labs). John Carmack isn’t there, although maybe his star was tarnished by John Romero’s disgrace. It makes sense that e.g. Matz is missing, but it’s not like Larry Wall was hard to find on message boards. At this point, Paul Graham was churning out essays, but he probably stopped answering cold emails.

        So, who else should have been on the list then? And who would be on a list like this now (or should be but wouldn’t)?

        1. 1