I think that it's extraordinarily important that we in computer science keep fun in computing.
When it started out, it was an awful lot of fun.
Of course, the paying customers got shafted every now and then,
and after a while we began to take their complaints seriously.
We began to feel as if we really were responsible for the successful,
error-free perfect use of these machines.
I don't think we are.
I think we're responsible for stretching them, setting them off in new directions,
and keeping fun in the house.
I hope the field of computer science never loses its sense of fun.
Above all, I hope we don't become missionaries.
Don't feel as if you're Bible salesmen.
The world has too many of those already.
What you know about computing other people will learn.
Don't feel as if the key to successful computing is only in your hands.
What's in your hands, I think and hope, is intelligence:
the ability to see the machine as more than when you were first led up to it,
that you can make it more.
Alan J. Perlis
https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-3.html
The control systems inside machines used to be physical: gears and levers and cams.
Increasingly, the brains (and thus the value) of products is in software.
Paul Graham
Good Bad Attitude
Hackers & Painters
https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/hackers-painters/0596006624/ch04.html
go
do program = (statement)
statement = statement expression | nothing
expression = (subject predicate) | atom
subject = expression
predicate = action | predicate flowop action
flowop = atom
action = verb object
verb = expression
object = statement
1. How to Organize Big Libraries?
2. Are People Really Scared of Prefix Syntax?
3. What Do You Need for Server-Based Software?
4. What New Abstractions Are Left to Discover?
Paul Graham
Five Questions about Language Design
http://www.paulgraham.com/langdes.html
Have fun!