Throwing in the towel on becoming a programmer

Man learn Javascript, c. 1900.

Man learn Javascript, c. 1900.

I think ready to hang up my programmer skates. In fact, it seems more likely that I never had skates to begin with. In the past 5-10 years, I’ve attempted to learn to code in virtually all of the major web languages and environments, using all of the latest tools and and classes and tutorials—and I’ve failed miserably every single time.

I just stumbled across Dawn Casey’s omg! I’m a n00b and too afraid to start. It is unbelievably good. Go read it, I’ll wait. Some parts are sad, some parts are laugh-out-loud funny, and I’m sure there are some parts in the middle there that are encouraging to beginners, but I can see right through the whole thing.  The whole ebb and flow from “holy man, I’m completely lost” to “humm…I think I’m starting to finally get this!” is something I know very, very well. I’ve felt this addictive, though ultimately disappointing feeling many times.

We’ll have some fun reliving the agony in a moment, but first a word of background for the folks at home: although I can’t program I can definitely code. The distinction needs to be made there. I’ve been coding for years and have actually gotten pretty good at it. WordPress is my main tool of choice and I’ve gotten quite handy with it — I maintain my own starter theme (a fork / amalgamation of several projects),  I write all of my projects from scratch, I write (modify) all kinds of custom functions to make different parts work, and I generally know the ins and outs of building reasonably complex sites with WordPress. On top of that, I’m extremely comfortable in the command line and I use Git for almost everything I work on. All that is to say that  A) I’m not a beginner, and B) I’m not non-technical. But, as we’ll now learn, I’m absolutely not a programmer.

A Sense of an Endpoint or, The Trouble with Programming

Over the years I have tried to learn all the big players: PHP, Javascript, Ruby, Python, Perl, Java and Objective C. I have failed to learn all of these. It’s almost staggering to even write/realize this. Seven languages. Seven! And I completely and utterly failed at learning all of them. What’s the issue then? After all these years, I think I’ve finally come up with the answer: although the road to starting to learn all of these languages is manageable, they all have a brick wall at the end. Let’s look at the four I spent the most time with:


PHP is my “best” language, though that’s a dubious honour. It’s the one I’ve been playing with the longest, and the one I’m most comfortable in, given all my time spent with WordPress. PHP is (should be?) a great language to learn with because all of the environment stuff is taken care of for you—just download MAMP, stick some PHP tags into a document and off you go. This is the language I’ve definitely spent the most time with — I’ve done several courses, read several thick books, read literally zillions of tutorials. I’ve gone through lengthy tutorials where I create an object that has a PDO or something to access my fake eCommerce store in my fake database. Things have actually gone fairly well a few times with PHP, in that I’ve gotten fairly far along with the material, but it never lasts long. Pretty soon it’s midnight on a Tuesday and I’m trying to access a query string that was sent via $_POST and I get thinking, “You know? Life is waaaaaay too short for this”.


I’m sorry…..what?

So, while starting with PHP is great, going beyond the basics has felt like solving a Rubik’s Cube with my toes. In the end, every single time, I’ve decided that there’s no way I’d ever want to build anything with PHP that I couldn’t already do much faster/easier/better with WordPress. And hence, I’ve given up.


This is the real fun one! I’ve spent almost as much time with Javascript as I have with PHP. I started with jQuery (which I can use reasonably capably) and eventually worked backwards into plain Javascript. It’s actually a lot of fun, at first. The thing with Javascript is you have control over when things happen. This control is given to you by funny things called “callbacks”. Essentially, you use a function to call (or “callback”) another function. Let’s say for some reason you wanted to hide every image in on page for 10 seconds on page load. All you need to do is create a timer function that counts for 10 seconds and then call the image loading function as a callback to that. See? Fun!

The not fun part about Javascript is that brick wall I was talking about earlier. After spending a lot of time going through tutorials and courses and reading books and building little projects, I really felt like I was ready to take on the Javascript world. After you’ve got the basics down pat, the logical next step is browsing through the 500 TodoJS apps and spending a month trying to decide which MVC framework will suit you best. After you decide, it will take you another month to try and figure out what an MVC framework even does. I still don’t really know.

So, when people tell you that Javascript is the wave of the future, this is what they’re talking about. If you’re feeling pretty good about all the JS you know, just have a look at this:


I’m sorry, ({ what })?

At first I thought, “Hummm, I’m really catching onto this Javascript stuff!” Everything’s an object, callbacks, hell, I even understood what the module pattern was and why it made sense to use it (to avoid this “spaghetti” business people talk about)! But turning all that knowledge into a working Backbone app? That felt like swimming in cement. The funny thing about Javascript is that I still can’t see a way for me bridge those two worlds. I simply can’t see how I can take all these fundamentals that I know about Javascript now, and scaffold it up enough so that something like Backbone even makes sense to me. Despite hours and hours and hours of work, getting to that “next level” with Javascript feels literally impossible.


I don’t have a lot to say about Python, except that I know the promise from xkcd is an empty one. I tried it a few times, and worked through the course at Codecademy, but it never felt very natural. I didn’t spend too long with it, but it never really clicked. On top of that, there’s a constant din of “Python’s not for you, it’s for them ({scientists, academics, hackers, statisticians, someone else})” out there if you look up stuff about Python. The language has always been really appealing for me, but for better or worse it’s never felt like something I should invest my time in. That, combined with the fact that I discovered Ruby meant the end for Python.


If you’ve never touched a single language, this is the one for you. It really is beautiful, like so many say. It’s short, concise, fun, productive, and a lot of it really, truly reads like English. Of all the languages, Ruby was by far the most natural and fun. In the months I spent learning Ruby the hard way, I’d run home from work to get back to it. I really loved working on new things in Ruby — they all just made sense so quickly. By the end, I was feeling so happy and comfortable with Ruby that I even tackled some problems in Project Euler with it.

But as I look back at it now, I could have easily used PHP or Javascript for those same problems. I still like the syntax of Ruby better than all the others, but I wasn’t doing anything with Ruby that I couldn’t do with PHP or JS. I’d write a clunky function that did something with x and y and returned some value at the end. Doing it with Ruby was fun, but I wasn’t doing anything beyond playing with the primitives. Well, what’s beyond the privatives you ask? In short: Rails. Just like all the others, Ruby has a brick wall as well. It’s called Rails. The only thing is, Rails isn’t just a brick wall, it’s a brick mountain.

A few years back, I spent about a month getting comfortable with Ruby. It was actually really nice, and as I’ve said, fun. Actual, legitimate fun. After I was happy with where I was with Ruby the language, I started in ernest with Michael Hartl’s famous Rails Tutorial. I probably lasted another 6 weeks after that, but I knew pretty early on that it really wasn’t going to happen for me. In the tutorial, Hartl introduces Ruby, Rails, Git, Heroku, Test Driven Development and just about everything else you can think of, right from the start. By the end of the first month, I had literally no idea what was going on. I’d rake something and then route something else, and then I’d try and migrate up to (or down from) somewhere and absolutely none of it made any sense. By quittin’ time (around week 6) I was 100% convinced that anything I’d end up building with Rails could be build in a fraction of the time in WordPress.

Sure, but what about Sinatra? I actually did a few projects with Sinatra as well, and really liked using it. It felt pretty fun too. Way less behind the scenes magic, and you could actually see what was going on. But what was the point? Rails is still the big endpoint, and playing around with Sinatra really doesn’t get you too far down the road to learning Rails.

A light at the beginning of the tunnel

The whole business of programming is extremely complex. There are so many moving parts to anything these days, and one could easily spend a year just learning the tools available for a given language/environment. Javascript is a perfect example of this—it’s completely and utterly obsessed with tools. Not that these tools aren’t useful, there’s just a million of them.

I’ll end with two excerpts. First, a quote from the omg I’m a noob piece that I mentioned at the top, that sums all of this up nicely for me:


Second, probably the true impetus for writing this post, is a few lines from David DeSandro‘s ImagesLoaded Javascript plugin. While en route down a winding rabbit hole the other day, I stumbled across this plugin and took a second to look through the code to see if any of it made sense to me. By about line 20, I was actually laughing out loud. I have no clue whatsoever what the code is doing, despite all of my courses and books and hours spent at the screen. Here’s the selection that made me spit coffee onto my keyboard:


Really though, just what is happening here?

It’s not that I’m done trying to learn any of this, or certainly not that I don’t find any of it enjoyable. I suspect that in years to come, I’ll go pick up a fresh copy of Ruby again and spend a month or two using it to figure out some Project Euler problems, but I think that my ambitions to become a programmer have finally extinguished. And I think I’m actually relieved by this.

Here’s to spending more time outside!

Bones and Underscores — WordPress theme head-to-head Update


It’s been a while since I published Part I of the Bones and Underscores a tête-à-tête. Honestly, I didn’t think writing a follow-up would take half as long as this, and lots of people have been asking what my conclusions are. I’m happy to report that after more than a year, I have reached a conclusion!

[ drumroll ]

I’m delighted to announce that the winner of the Bones vs Underscores death match is: neither / both! (Come on now, you knew there wouldn’t be an actual winner!).

So, on to the details. The reason this post has taken so long to write was that I’m only now realizing what I want to say about both themes. I’ve used _s the most since it came out — I’ve probably built 10+ themes with it as the foundation — and so it was really hard to judge Bones against that after just some light playing around. In the last few months, I’ve gotten to build a few new projects with Bones (this site is one), and I’m in a much better position to give some honest feedback about what I think of them both. Let’s get to it!


Mobile first

When I first started playing with Bones, I didn’t know what to make of the whole mobile first thing. It was my introduction to this design approach, and was much different than the typical pattern of throwing rules at media queries in the bottom of style.css and calling a site responsive. Mobile first really forces you to think about the most basic elements of your site and build up from there.

With Bones, you start with the _base.less file (if you use LESS), and build up. An easy way to think about it is to think of _base.less the same way that you would think of your typical smallest media query. So, anything you would put in that media query to affect the look of your site on phones should go in that file. When you’ve got that roughly the way you want it, you move on to the next size up: the _768up.less file. This will affect screens from 768px wide and up. Anything you want to have happen on an iPad or a desktop or a laptop, you put in here. If you’re used to tackling media queries at the end of a project, it will probably feel a bit painful to have to think about phones and laptops separately, but once you’ve spent a few hours in this mindset, it quickly becomes natural.

Even if you have no intention of ever using Bones, I’d still recommend building a site using it, just to get the benefit of being exposed to the mobile first idea. Mobile first seemed so unnecessary and almost pretentious to me last year, but now it feels 100% the right way to do things.

The big piece of getting this was realizing that mobile first refers to the process not the product. I used to think: “Meh. Only 20% of my visitors are on mobile, so why should I start with them first?”. But it’s really about thinking of the mobile part as a foundation — start with small screens and lay out all the foundational elements — colours, type, visual elements, etc — and then layer on top of that. Only add what you need as the screen size changes. It doesn’t mean designing a fully-functioning iPhone site before even thinking about your desktop site — it means only adding or layering on the bare minimum to each successive size up. If you’ve laid a solid foundation in your _base.less file, you’ll likely have add very minimally to the other screen sizes. In short: mobile-first doesn’t mean extra work.

End tangent. That was a lot more about mobile first than Bones specifically, but it was huge, huge, huge for me. Hopefully it will be a good introduction to mobile first for you as well.

Stylesheet partials

Being a fan of _s for so long (and it’s predecessor, Toolbox, for longer) I’d grown accustomed to having just one stylesheet to manage— style.less — the one-stop-shop. I loved the simplicity, I loved having everything in one place. It was great. Until I saw a better way. Bones has everything broken out into partials — there’s a partial for the base styles, another for each media query breakpoint (480, 768, 1030, 1240) as well as others for retina screens, one for normalize.css, one for print styles, one for mixins, one for the grid, etc. IE: lots of partials.

I really found this unnecessary and inefficient at first. I had to search around to see where everything was, and I was never sure if I was putting things in the right place. To be honest, it was pretty frustrating. But slowly, over time, I began to see the natural breakdown of styles. I started to get the whole mobile first thing and I swapped in my own grid system and added some of my own mixins, and pretty soon I was actually thinking in partials. It just started to make sense to have things in different files, separated by the things that concern them.


As of this writing, Bones still doesn’t implement the get_template_part() design pattern that I love so much. I really hate overloaded template files, and so I simply had to change that if I was going to continue working with Bones. In the end, I took that approach from _s and morphed it into my fork of Bones. The result is much lighter template files, and a bit of reduced repetition. It might not bother you, but it was a real deal-breaker for me.


The name

I hate the name. Having to do a complicated search and replace for the string _s has never once worked out properly for me, and so in all my old projects I’ve just left references to _s, rather than try and weed them all out. It’s probably a minor issue, but it’s been really frustrating every time I’ve gone to use it. I’m always left scratching my head, thinking “_s”? Is this the best they could come up with?

The barebones-ness

Underscores is very, very bare when you get it installed and activated. In fact, every time I activate it and go to the front page, my immediate reaction is to think that there’s something going on with my MAMP install. It’s completely bare. It does come supplied with some sample layouts, but really, if you’re starting from absolute scratch like this, you’re probably going to build your own layouts too.

Although any visual styling would probably need to be undone as you setup your new project, I still think it would make the starting point feel a bit more comfortable. Maybe it’s just the designer in me, but I always find starting a new project in Bones to be much more comfort/ing/able. I like to start with something, even if that something needs to eventually be removed. That’s just me.

But you may love it. It’s a completely clean slate, with almost no assumptions made about how it should look. That might be just what you’re happiest with.

The Buttons

The button styles are grotesque. There’s no way around those giant, hideous buttons.

Eric Meyer’s style reset

I mentioned in the original post that I really don’t like Eric Meyer’s stylesheet reset that Underscores uses. I still don’t. I prefer the normalize approach from Nicolas Gallagher, as used by Bones. Seeing my dev tools inspector window filled with line after line of needless resets just really frustrates me. There’s no need anymore.

The rest

That said, the rest of this theme is fantastic. Everything being done in this theme is being done for the right reasons and with good justifications. It’s been used and refined by all kinds of very smart developers who know WordPress inside out, so I really trust what’s going on in the template files. If you’re looking for the Right Way to develop a WordPress theme from scratch, I’d say to start there, without hesitation.

In short

You’ve probably guessed by now that I’m in the process of creating a Bones / Underscores Franken-hybrid theme. There’s just so much I love and hate with each one, that it seems natural to customize the best of both and make the perfect theme for me. I’ve started down that road here: Waterstreet on Github. You’re more than welcome to have a look and see how I’ve got things setup. A few things you might notice right away:

  1. I’m pulling in content.php via get_template_part() wherever possible.
  2. I’ve got Font Awesome hooked in and ready to go.
  3. I’m using a grid inspired by the great work over at Mapbox
  4. I’m using many of Underscore’s template tags

I’m still wondering if I should have forked Underscores added Bones, or forked Bones and added Underscores, but time will tell. At the moment, I’m fairly happy with the direction of our Franken-hybrid. Stay tuned!

Camera bucket list

I’m always thinking about new camera gear — not for the sake of just having new stuff, but because there’s so much out there I want to play with. In the interest of keeping track of all of these, I thought I’d compile a list. So, in some particular order:

  1. Hasselblad 500 C/M
  2. Canon 5D 
  3. Canon AE-1
  4. Contax G2
  5. Hasselblad XPan
  6. A Leica
  7. Fuji GW690
  8. Canonet G-III 17
  9. Fujifilm X-Pro1
  10. Rolleicord
  11. Bronica SQ-A

This list is obviously bound to grow  =)

What’s on your list?

Journalism, home maintenance and learning to code

The everyone-should-learn-to-code movement has been going strong for a few years now. It will be obvious for anyone who does code that coding isn’t for everyone. While everyone might have the potential to learn some of the basics, “coding”, no matter how you define it, involves an enormous network of deep, deep rabbit holes.

If you had asked me 5 years ago what it meant to be a good programmer, I might have said:   I donno. You need to be good at math?  Whereas now, I’d almost certainly say that the most important ingredient for the aspiring coder is persistence. The basics are there for anyone to learn — learning about strings and arrays and writing some x + y functions is possible for absolute beginners in almost any language — but the road past that, towards http and APIs and GET and POST and on and on and on, is long.

Noah Veltman has written the best piece I’ve read to date on this:

Learning to make things for the web – If I set aside my own bias as a web developer, this is probably the category I’m least sanguine about for a broad audience. I certainly think a basic working knowledge of HTML and how the web functions is necessary, but I’m willing to buy the argument that we shouldn’t send journalists who really are just looking to write too far down the web rabbit hole. This is mostly because, whereas a journalist who dabbles in using code to analyze data can get real immediate value out of a few tricks, the same is less true of the web. Once you get past the frisson of excitement you get the first time you switch from web consumer to a person who just made a real live web page, there’s a long road before you can make something complex that could go on your news organization’s website. You have to put in a lot of reps before you can wrestle with all the little gotchas of making something for public consumption on every imaginable browser and device.

And finally, as a 5-year home owner, this one paragraph resonated loudly with me:

Learning to code is not like learning calculus, with some big fixed corpus of knowledge you need to absorb. It’s more like learning to be handy around the house. You start off knowing nothing, and then as needs come up you learn bits and pieces without a grand plan, weekend by weekend, with plenty of hammered thumbs and structurally unsound carpentry. Slowly but surely, those bits and pieces coalesce into something approaching expertise. You build up the confidence to be bold and take on problems you don’t yet have any idea how to solve.

One day you’re at Home Depot buying a hammer and a carpenter’s square, and the next day (years later), you’re laying hardwood floors and rewiring a nursery. At least that’s the idea anyway.

Jack Sutton

Introducing Jack Robert Thomas Sutton. Born in the wee hours of November 9th, 2013 — right on his due date! He was the perfect size at 7lbs 3oz and a lanky 20″ long.

Jack will immediately assume assistant storekeep duties here at WaterstreetGM.

Figuring out the size of folders in your Terminal

Ever wonder how big those folders are getting on your server? Your wp-uploads folders can get huge over time, and it’s hard to figure out just how huge.

Using ls -la tells you about the files, but not the folders:


Luckily we’ve got something better. Give du -hsc * a try. It will return this pile of useful information:

I can now see the size of each file and folder in my current directory and I get a total at the end. Cool! The odds of you actually remembering that command in two weeks time though is probably zero, so let’s setup an alias with a better name:

  1. Log in to your server
  2. Type nano ~/.bash_profile
  3. Nano is a basic text editor. In that window add a new line: alias whatsize="du -hsc *"
  4. Save and close that file (ctrl+x)
  5. When Nano closes and you get back to the $ prompt, you’ll need to tell your shell about the new alias you just created. Do that with: source ~/.bash_profile.
  6. Last, go to a folder you want to inspect and simply type whatsize!

A Ghost is Born

Ghost opened to the public yesterday—on Canadian Thanksgiving Monday, no less!— so I naturally downloaded it and gave it a spin.

It’s been available to Kickstarter backers for a few weeks now (or months?) so there’s lots of press out there already. Almost all of the stuff I’ve read has been overwhelmingly positive, and for good reason. Ghost is already a well packaged product: the branding, the marketing, the single-minded vision (to be a blog), to say nothing of the software itself (it looks great).

I read a great piece from Michael Bastos yesterday talking about the intersection of WordPress and Ghost. He does a great job of outlining where both are in the market and where they’re likely to collide and/or benefit from each other. I agree with almost all of what he says. But while using Ghost yesterday for the first time, I wasn’t struck by how full-featured it was, or how it could develop into a “WordPress killer” as some are saying. What I was struck by was something unexpected.

I was struck by the speed and responsiveness. Having Javascript at its core, I was certainly expecting Ghost to feel somehow different, I just wasn’t sure how. But after a few clicks around the admin area, it felt wildly different than anything else I’ve used. Pages loaded instantly when you clicked. No waiting, no progress bar, nothing. Just click and then there’s the page — instantly.

Going back to a WordPress project after playing with Ghost for a half-hour or so, felt like I was taking a real step backwards. I could feel the WordPress pages loading. I’d click a menu item and wait a noticeable amount of time before the page loaded. It wasn’t unbearable or sluggish by any means, but it really was different. Of course I understand that a page load in WordPress involves much more than one in Ghost, and that their underlying technologies are very, very different, but still.

The whole time I was playing with Ghost yesterday, it felt that this was where WordPress could stand to benefit most. As more and more of WordPress slowly morphs into Javascript, we’ll eventually get to a stage where WordPress behaves this quickly and responsively. This is what makes working with WordPress that much more exciting.