3 ms·

I despise the name "Software 2.0" because it implies a certain betterness. Some things will always be written in the "1.0" fashion.

• mullsork 9y ago
  > Some things will always be written in the "1.0" fashion. Like the article clearly stated.
• msangi 9y ago
  I think that, as it already happens today, different classes of problems are going to be solved with different techniques. Do you have a clear specification and expect exact results? "Software 1.0" is the best choice. Do you have problems that are computationally intractable, or simply a huge amount of data and you can accept an approximate solution? This is where "Software 2.0" makes sense. It's already being used and it will keep expanding. The factors that will determine the ration between "Software 1.0" and "Software 2.0" will likely be: * how much we will be willing to accept approximate solutions * how easy it will be to collect the training data and to train a neural network. I can totally imagine an hybrid model where there is going to be a lot of "Software 1.0" with some black boxes trained using machine learning techniques. I'm not very convinced we will have many 100% "Software 1.0" applications. That works well for some specific problems (like AlphaGo Zero mentioned in the article) but many other domains don't map that well to a machine learning problem.
• spraak 9y ago
  But the software they describe is better. And besides, linear versions don't mean better necessarily. Is 2017 better than 2016?
  • andreasgonewild 9y ago
    How can it be better when it fails randomly and we don't even understand how it works? Where I come from, that's the worst kind of software.