On: Bill requiring US agencies to share source code wi...

[jasonlfunk]

It’s hard to know what they hope to accomplish with this bill. Anytime you develop custom code, it’s because you need something, well, custom.

What are the chances that something custom built for one agency is going to be at all useful to the custom needs of another agency?

[dgrin91 → jasonlfunk]

Almost 100%. Most 'custom code' I've written in my career for various employers, customers, clients, etc has been very similar.

Business logic tends to be <10%, the rest is just integrating stuff and piping data.

[monetus → jasonlfunk]

You would think some "glue code" around their databases could maybe be shared, or eventually converge. How they handle forms? Something.

[Mountain_Skies → jasonlfunk]

Might not be directly useful to most people but for AI companies looking for more material for their LLMs to consume, it would be a goldmine.

[chii → jasonlfunk]

by arguing the need to be sharing code (despite it not being the logical thing to do), you end up with (sub)contractors who will have more work to do to comply, and to make an otherwise simple system more complex by virtue of having to shove two separate systems together in one, so that they could be shared between agencies!

[JumpCrisscross → chii]

> by virtue of having to shove two separate systems together in one, so that they could be shared between agencies

Where does the bill require interoperability?

[Terr_ → jasonlfunk]

I think you're confusing share (make available) with share (mandatory reuse).