I believe this is the original publication, 1982: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/947955.1083808

Ah, the age - 41 years! - explains a lot and makes me so much more forgiving of these. They certainly come from another era.

I stopped reading around #60, but I've gotta say that the first 40 or so really resonated with me.

The (1982) seems legit, at least for the collection. However, the Yale site is incomplete, stopping at 120 instead of 130.

Canonical location is https://doi.org/10.1145/947955.1083808 leads to https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/947955.1083808 (preview page, incomplete and not text-selectable), PDF link https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/947955.1083808 is seems to have text data though?

https://web.archive.org/web/20180827170243/http://thecoremem... is a reformatted text PDF of the full version, and https://web.archive.org/web/20230127130734/http://pu.inf.uni... is a full HTML version, which only went offline this year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigrams_on_Programming

> stopping at 120 instead of 130

Maybe that’s somewhat reasonable (?) given the last nine are epigram epigrams, not directly about programming…

  If there are epigrams, there must be meta-epigrams.
  122. Epigrams are interfaces across which appreciation and insight flow.
  123. Epigrams parametrize auras.
  124. Epigrams are macros, since they are executed at read time.
  125. Epigrams crystallize incongruities.
  126. Epigrams retrieve deep semantics from a data base that is all procedure.
  127. Epigrams scorn detail and make a point: They are a superb high-level documentation.
  128. Epigrams are more like vitamins than protein.
  129. Epigrams have extremely low entropy.
  130. The last epigram? Neither eat nor drink them, snuff epigrams.

But that's no excuse for omitting "121. In seeking the unattainable, simplicity only gets in the way."

The Yale version includes that one. (#60) I’m not sure which one is missing.

Edit, the old #60 is missing:

  Dana Scott is the Church of the Lattice-Way Saints.

That one’s totally obscure, it seems okay to elide. Even the pun’s reference will elude most readers.

Thanks! I added that last link to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38751846, and the year to the title.