I think a big part of the problem is the inherited collective ego of software being birthed by computer science. If you go look at early software, early Unix, whatever, there is such a tremendous volume of really clever things going on. Little DSLs, weird experiments that bled into POSIX. All the effort devoted to grammars and compilers and making Hard Problems look Easy.
I sometimes get frustrated that my colleagues don't know how to read an awk script, or that they think it's just a fact of life that they have to delete their git repository and perform a fresh clone because that's just the way npm is sometimes. Am I asking for too much? But then I remember that we have built all of this on impossibly tall ivory towers of complexity. It's almost unfathomable.
Almost every project is someone's vice in this vein form of worship we call software development. We tell ourselves that we've moved past this phase, we've seen what complexity really is. But can we actually? Ever? Are we just fooling ourselves?
It always seemed to me that it's ideal to use sophisticated tools to build mundane and interesting solutions. But every solution is just a tool for someone else. So much of what I love about what we do is hopelessly couples to that very complexity I despise. How can we reconcile this?
Out of sight, out of mind, I suppose.
I think the real problem is that we consider this all one big profession when in reality it's as varied as the crafts: electricians, plumbers, metalworkers, laborers, carpenters, mechanics, engineers, architects, painters, roofers, landscapers...
> But can we actually? Ever? Are we just fooling ourselves?
I don’t have any hopes of the deepest theoretical complexity problems will be solved. However, let’s not be too defeatist. Look back 10-20-30 years. The things that survive in the long run (longer than a ~5y hype-cycle) are almost always an improvement compared to the past. Some genies can’t be put back in the bottle - good ideas, models and abstractions fit that bill, in my view. I’m hopeful.
> Out of sight, out of mind, I suppose.
Yes but this isn’t always bad. Things like schedulers, compilers, query planners should be out of mind. Or at least it’s the best way we can compartmentalize complexity today. It’s a last resort, so you shouldn’t pick immature and highly complex deps at the same time. Fortunately, we have mature tech that does a lot of heavy lifting, even if magical.
I sometimes get frustrated that my colleagues don't know how to read an awk script, or that they think it's just a fact of life that they have to delete their git repository and perform a fresh clone because that's just the way npm is sometimes. Am I asking for too much? But then I remember that we have built all of this on impossibly tall ivory towers of complexity. It's almost unfathomable.
Almost every project is someone's vice in this vein form of worship we call software development. We tell ourselves that we've moved past this phase, we've seen what complexity really is. But can we actually? Ever? Are we just fooling ourselves?
It always seemed to me that it's ideal to use sophisticated tools to build mundane and interesting solutions. But every solution is just a tool for someone else. So much of what I love about what we do is hopelessly couples to that very complexity I despise. How can we reconcile this?
Out of sight, out of mind, I suppose.
I think the real problem is that we consider this all one big profession when in reality it's as varied as the crafts: electricians, plumbers, metalworkers, laborers, carpenters, mechanics, engineers, architects, painters, roofers, landscapers...
We just do it all.