25 ms·

There aught to be a name to the tendency that as tools get better and better, the more your time goes from having your mind in technical-space to social and new

• lkrubner 9y ago
  I wish I could give you more upvotes. You are describing a somewhat hidden psychology, which I think provides a rational basis for much of "Not Invented Here" psychology. We tend to think that "Not Invented Here" psychology is irrational, but in fact, the loss of control over possibly crucial technology is an important cost, which makes all of us stop and re-consider whether we really want to use some software developed by an external team.
  • jstimpfle 9y ago
    And it's not only that - Time spent not doing our own designs (and instead spent memorizing how to use magical frameworks) is time not spent advancing our technical understanding. It's a sad state when otherwise very intelligent people think it's bad practice to use plain C and a clean OS API that has been stable for decades (because that was somehow "magic" und impossible to understand and error-prone), and advise you to use the Boost filesystem module just to concatenate two paths.
    • kakarot 9y ago
      The most valuable skill is knowing when to externalize your tools. You don't always want to reinvent the wheel every time you need something, when you have deadlines to consider.
      • jstimpfle 9y ago
        Is that in support of using the Boost filesystem API?
        • konschubert 9y ago
          It depends on what you're doing with it, I'd guess.
        • VHRanger 9y ago
          IMO, only if you're using g++ or older versions of the standard. MSVC, clang and ICC have all supported the experimental::filesystem module for years at this point.
        • kakarot 9y ago
          I don't use C++ outside of games programming, I'm not familiar with the Boost filesystem API.
      • islanderfun 9y ago
        Exactly this. There's a ton of gray here. Have to pick your battles as best as you can. Another example are game engines. Hard deny the value engines like Unreal and Unity provide. They are hard to ignore and have thousands of expert hours put into them.
        • jstimpfle 9y ago
          A good way to pick battles is not to fight most of them. There are so many solutions that don't have any real problems...
          • paulryanrogers 9y ago
            Could you provide an example of solutions without real problems, game engines or otherwise?
            • 9y ago
    • robocat 9y ago
      Concatenating two paths is difficult if you care about any of the following: security, multiple OS's, Unicode (multiple code units, validity, combining characters), file system restrictions, etc. Your "two decades" maybe holds for Linux, but what about Windows or MacOS???! I have seen too many people use string concatenation. I think an intelligent person would recommend to use the normal library (appropriate for your language, assuming it is well written) since usually your program will be doing many other filename/path manipulations too.
      • kckkdkd929292 9y ago
        seems like the sort of thing people should know how to spot then otherwise you’re getting security through obscurity of a magic framework no one has time to vet looking at you, openssl, etc, etc
      • jstimpfle 9y ago
        https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/windows/desktop/bb773571(v=vs.85).aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/windows/desktop/bb7...
        • robocat 9y ago
          Exactly my point - that function doesn't deal with modern windows. MAX_PATH is 260 characters. Yet Windows now supports longer paths (\\?\ prefix). So I presume there is another Windows function to combine long path names (and maybe canonicalise Unicode better).
          • jstimpfle 9y ago
            > Yet Windows now supports longer paths (\\?\ prefix). I know. And this is the attitude that leads to complex software. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: "I can't do it on my own since the problem is so complex". In which case the problem does get complex. I recommend not wasting time supporting this crazy feature (unless you are writing infrastructure code for tools and you're required to - in which case I'm sorry). 260 character paths are more than enough for any project. And I certainly recommend against using the crazy abstractions from Boost::filesystem. (Personally I think it's an unfortunate example. I'd prefer to avoid paths from the start, since nobody understands the semantics of hierarchical filesystems. Alas, typically you need to deal with them to some degree).
    • pjmlp 9y ago
      The amount of security exploits due to memory corruption in software written in C proves that during the last 50 years, it isn't that well understood.
    • cottonseed 9y ago
      > Time spent not doing our own designs (and instead spent memorizing how to use magical frameworks) is time not spent advancing our technical understanding. I can't upvote this enough. I used to do mathematics, and there was the story of a professor would would hold up a book and say, "You should know everything in this book. But don't read it!" Which is to say, you have to go through the process of discovering mathematics to really understand it (maybe with a bit of guidance when you get really stuck). The skill of building complex software systems is no different.
      • collyw 9y ago
        Sure and those of us experienced in writing software tend to avoid reinventing the wheel (in a buggy, untested way). I see the value in learning by building yourself, but from a software engineering point of view, using a tried and tested framework is likely to give you higher quality product in less time.
        • jstimpfle 9y ago
          Well, the framework I was to use last (Qt) had bugs that simply can't be fixed by users (memory leaks, double free leading to segfault when exiting after reloading QML engine) and immature modules (for example translation) and forces complicated types to the user and forces bad architectural decisions to the user and significantly increases compile times... > using a tried and tested framework is likely to give you higher quality product in less time. This is a common sentiment, but note that a framework has huge handicaps - not knowing your business requirements and concepts - must be suitable for many software projects that need features you'll never need. - there is a clear maintenance boundary (framework vs your own code), which requires a complex interface with maintenance overhead and typically forces you to use concepts that don't really match your requirements If you're experienced in the relevant domain it's almost always simpler to do it yourself / reuse your own work.
          • crdoconnor 9y ago
            I don't think reinventing the wheel is the right approach. I think careful analysis of bugs and design deficiencies the likes of which you experienced before jumping in and using the framework is the way to do it. This is why I absolutely love seeing hate filled developer rants about technology with deep dive analyses and links to bug trackers. That's how I was saved from learning Ruby on Rails back in 2008 when most developers gushed about how awesome it after reacting to its slick marketing and building a tiny website in 5 minutes.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • astral303 9y ago
      Continued plain C usage is an embarrassment to the software industry and has cost the world untold money.
    • onion2k 9y ago
      Time spent not doing our own designs (and instead spent memorizing how to use magical frameworks) is time not spent advancing our technical understanding. That's a false dichotomy. The time it takes to "memorize a magical framework" is far less than the time it'd take to learn how to write code to do what the framework does. Consequently you can learn a framework and some other technical understanding in the same time it'd take you to only learn enough to implement your own version of the framework. In most circumstances that's actually more beneficial to do that. You'll be further forward in your understanding of the technical stuff. You're also assuming that frameworks are written by individuals. They're not. In the case of some large frameworks it'd be practically impossible to implement what they cover on your own. You simply can't learn the underlying principles and then implement them all in code yourself. It's definitely worthwhile learning the basics of the languages you use, and you should be working on things that improve your code and understanding as much as possible, but it's very likely in most cases that will mean building on top of someone else's existing code rather than implementing everything yourself.
      • jstimpfle 9y ago
        These are still claims without any context. It mostly depends on how experienced the programmer is. And most importantly, note that one never needs all the functionality from a framework. Typically it's only a very small part, and often the existing functionality in the framework does not match the requirements 100%.
        • damagednoob 9y ago
          I would think this claim is self-evident > In the case of some large frameworks it'd be practically impossible to implement what they cover on your own. You simply can't learn the underlying principles and then implement them all in code yourself. Not even DHH would claim to have been able to build the whole of Rails by himself.
        • Xylakant 9y ago
          Very often the match is good enough that it pays off to slightly align the requirements instead of patching the framework. The amount by of man-hours poured into the very core parts of rails for example, just processing and dispatching requests, safely decoding the input from a webserver to a useful set of parameters, routing the request to the proper handler and rendering and returning the response is huge. Certainly, you could take something slightly more modular, such as padrino, but that’s still a mind-melting amount of code if you look at all the libraries and dependencies. You could reimplement most of the basics, but that would be month or years of work and probably still buggy as hell. I’ve seen my share of “oh, we’ll just build our own framework” and they all turned out to be much more complex than the initiatiator expected.
    • collyw 9y ago
      I would disagree about that. Learning Django taught me a lot about the proper way to things. When I first started using it I implemented a lot of my own stuff myself (as I wasn't aware that the framework had certain features). I basically wrote my own equivalent of class based views before I understood Django's own. (http://ccbv.co.uk/ http://ccbv.co.uk/ helps understand them a lot) Reinventing Django's class based views is something that I have seen in a few inherited apps (like where I currently work). If your application is going to be something long lived and gets a number of developers while in maintenance mode, then memorizing a standard framework is a good thing - new developers should be familiar with how a framework works - as opposed to needing to spend time going through someone else home grown code. Then there is the issue that writing your own code will be untested relative to a framework that has some level of popularity. Documentation is likely to be better with a framework as well. (This is my perspective coming from a Python / Django background - I have noticed that JavaScript frameworks and libraries often have a lot more problems).
    • SatvikBeri 9y ago
      Recently, I spent some time trying to run several machine learning jobs simultaneously across AWS machines. This was a fairly simple use case: all the jobs were totally independent of each other, you could run them by calling a Python function with different parameters. I'm mostly a stats guy and not much of a programmer. I got a hacky, do-it-myself version using Python scripts up and running with about two hours of work, and learned about Python threads for the first time in the process, a tool that I can reuse in many different areas. I then tried to do this the "right" way, which according to Amazon is to use Docker and the AWS tools ECR, Batch, and SQS. It took me about 10 times as long to get that working. Yes, this offers much, much more functionality - but most of it is stuff I didn't need. The only real gain I got was my models running about 20% faster, and the knowledge I learned is ephemeral.
  • enraged_camel 9y ago
    Sure, NIH syndrome can be rational for technology that is crucial/central to your system. The problem is it is often used to justify re-inventing even mundane stuff. I once worked with a client who wanted to implement their own bug tracking system. The client’s main product was something totally unrelated.
    • marcosdumay 9y ago
      If even mundane stuff keeps breaking your workflow and demands all of your time to keep up with, then all the power for reinventing it. All the better if it is simple.
    • flukus 9y ago
      Bug trackers are one of those areas where a lot of companies should build there own. Everyone has there own workflows and information to capture and end up either conforming their process to the bug tracker or spending more time configuring the bug tracker than they would to build a new system from scratch. Those uber configurable systems always suck to use. Ones like JIRA can takes weeks to setup for your org and include their own query language. All of this complexity just to do something so simple is not rational. As long as you don't over engineer it then it's only a days work to get something up and running and it's a great project for interns.
      • ionforce 9y ago
        > Bug trackers are one of those areas where a lot of companies should build there own. This sounds insane. I have not worked at a place where the workflow was so holy and important that it couldn't be captured in a near default JIRA install. Most of the customization asks I've seen with JIRA come from dysfunctional organizations that demand new swimlanes like "QA" and "product approval" and "spec design".
        • kckkdkd929292 9y ago
          dont spend money building spend it on vendor lock-in i guess if you want to change the world with todo app that probably makes sense
  • cryptonector 9y ago
    I don't think that's the whole picture. You could copy an interface (and even implementation) and fork it. But often with NIH we see a reinvention of a technology without even looking at alternatives; often this ends badly (in Linux land much more often than not it seems).
    • jstimpfle 9y ago
      The problem is that reading (and learning from) code is hard. The other problem is that there is so much bad code out there (most of my own is certainly not an exception) that it gets even harder. And it's not about the code. Writing code is easy. It's about finding the right problems first. And then it's about finding the right abstractions. The easiest way to build a clean conceptual world is to start with a clean slate and ask yourself before introducing new code, "does this code solve a concrete problem? Do I really need it?" Unix had simple and clear ideas, and it has many reimplementations (NIH!), and most are not that bad - are they?
  • cottonseed 9y ago
    I also like to ask myself, "Do I want to become an expert at working with external software X, or do I want to become the kind of person who can build software like X?"
    • an_account_name 9y ago
      That's a great heuristic to keep in mind, thanks for that.
    • mooreds 9y ago
      That's great. However, how does the time to solve the business problems fit in?
  • simonebrunozzi 9y ago
    I gave him mine on your behalf :)
  • mooreds 9y ago
    Worth dropping a link to this Joel Spolsky article, where he discusses this concept and talks about the fact that the Excel team (in the 1990s) had their own c compiler: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/10/14/in-defense-of-not-invented-here-syndrome/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/10/14/in-defense-of-not-...
    • protoplant 9y ago
      I am glad I read this just now, I was jumping from hoop to hoop. and not only hoops but craft paradigms, reminds me of the Fred Brooks idea "There is no silver bullet". Brooks argues that "there is no single development, in either technology or management technique, which by itself promises even one order of magnitude [tenfold] improvement within a decade in productivity, in reliability, in simplicity." He also states that "we cannot expect ever to see two-fold gains every two years" in software development, as there is in hardware development (Moore's law) from wikipedia
      • mooreds 9y ago
        Glad it helped. Brooks should be required reading for every developer: software is hard.
• Analemma_ 9y ago
  I think a lot of this is that once a tool reaches a certain level of size and complexity, it’s impossible to know all the technical details unless you’re actually a developer on the project (and after another threshold, not even then). So at that point you have to use news and social information to find out what’s going on, and just trust that people know what they’re doing. It can be frustrating, but it’s also unavoidable. While I strive to know as much as possible about my tools, if I had to know every part of the stack backwards and forwards, I’d never get anything done. You do have to cede to the abstractions at some point.
  • hueving 9y ago
    The important distinction here is the pace. I can use a Ubuntu server LTS version and not have to stay on top of weekly development release announcements from upstream. With k8s lacking LTS, it forces you to drink from the firehose.
    • emmelaich 9y ago
      In a sense LTS is provided by vendors such as Gravitational and Red Hat. They introduce hysteresis and smooth out the bumps on the upgrade cycle.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • drdaeman 9y ago
    > It can be frustrating, but it’s also unavoidable. Why unavoidable? It's not that one is forced to use some tech... Even though the hyped crowd chants the names so loudly. A lot of things that complex technology offers are not really needed (not to mention one has to constantly fight with that new complex technology when it doesn't yet do something). And complex tech can be frequently replaced with a small set of tiny scripts and small and simple standalone services. Domain and deployment-specific scripts and services that are unique, sure. But still easy to grasp mentally (and much smaller than any mature project's codebase).
• papaf 9y ago
  There aught to be a name .. I think that "vendor lock-in" comes close to describing the situation. However, it does not describe the way the dependence changes the behaviour of the people locked in. I think that "addiction" fits in this case.
  • zapita 9y ago
    That's not lock-in, it's just a dependency. It would be lock-in if the vendor made it unreasonably difficult to remove the dependency.
• StillBored 9y ago
  Some of this is caused by lack of backwards compatibility too. In the past once you picked a library you could be pretty sure that the API's you depend on wouldn't change much, and then only with a major release which would come with adequate documentation detailing the important changes. These days the throw away and rewrite/refactor crowd is in such power that if you don't spend 1/2 your time tracking the commits your likely to find that your dependencies are entirely incompatible with whatever you have built on them and you have no idea how to fix that short of reading the last 6 months of mailing-list (whatever) postings just to change the "runlevel" or get your service to start...
  • ehnto 9y ago
    The dependency trees in many projects are out of control too. It was part of the reason I wanted to move on from my last position. We were spending so much time chasing infrastructure dependency changes that it began to feel like a treadmill that was slowly increasing speed. At some point I got tired and couldn't find the heart to debug yet another vagrant up failure, knowing that fixing it will probably break something else, and the actual project work was just as likely to suffer from the same issue. At home I keep it simple, and my advice to a sole developer or small team looking at some of these infrastructure platforms and tools thinking they need them: these tools are not for your use case. You don't need vagrant, docker, kubernetes to manage a 4 person dev team and you are just burning hours and building the chain of brittle tooling that will be your biggest pain point until you eventually hire a sadist/devops guy.
    • sedachv 9y ago
      > until you eventually hire a sadist/devops guy. I try to drop in and follow the devops scene from time to time; after all, a lot of my work ends up getting handled by this stuff, and sometimes you need to fix things yourself. From my point of view, listening to a devops talk is listening to a long monologue consisting of a chain of mostly food-related, seemingly unconnected English words ("Chef Cucumber Puppet Jenkins Salt") that somehow "run" on top of another. None of them are modular, none of them are interchangeable, there are no standards, whatever you write for one of the food-related items will not work with another food-related item, or the same food-related item of a different vintage. The shelf-life of the food-related items seems to be about 3 years. From an outsider's perspective it feels that, aside from Nix, there has not been any theoretic or standards progress in this field since Mark Burgess' time.
• munin 9y ago
  The short story version of this was written by Arthur C Clarke in 1951, "Superiority" http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html http://www.mayofamily.com/RLM/txt_Clarke_Superiority.html
  • emmelaich 9y ago
    Fantastic, thanks.
  • zaf 9y ago
    Thanks for that! Good story!
• reacharavindh 9y ago
  I was just thinking the other day about "finished software". These days, those Unix philosophy tools of doing one thing well and leaving small solved problems alone are becoming seemingly fewer and fewer.
  • crankylinuxuser 9y ago
    Indeed. The cathedrals won. I would posit(x !) that it's because it is easier to form a community and 'cost of entrance' around a megalith like Kubernetes, than around individual tools that do 1 or a few very similar things well. Then again, I would say it's time to start looking away from "handling text streams", to something that can handle data streams of various formats, including transcoders that can convert from one type to another.
    • jrochkind1 9y ago
      I think people have a limit of the number of "things" they can learn too. One big thing is one thing, 10 tiny things are 10 things. 10 things you have to learn, and then figure out the optimal (or tolerable) way for them to all work together. The original unix utilities had the benefit of (compared to now) being in a relatively simple environment, and a (much more) relatively small developer community, and a clear shared architecture understanding between and among utility and systems designers. They almost end up being more different commands or subsystems of one 'thing' then a 'thing' of their own. This is very hard to do. Unix succeeded because it was succesful at it. Once, for instance, you say "oh yeah, we want just like this, except not just text streams", as you suggest -- it gets even harder. Especially in today's environment which is not that of the unix origin.
  • toast0 9y ago
    I don't necessarily mind relying on unfinished software; but it is tiring to rely on something that doesn't appear to be on the path to being finished. Projects with a complicated upgrade cycle and a rapidly moving upgrade treadmill are definitely a no-go.
  • bonesss 9y ago
    There are definitely client app trends away from the Unix philosophy... I would argue that's a product of the success of the Unix philosophy, though. New apps are developed in a world where 'curl' or 'grep' exist, they can move on to more specific needs. On the platform front I believe this philosophy has recently 'won the war': Microsoft was forced to create Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) as a compatibility layer to access exactly that rich tool ecosystem and it's server & production oriented workflow... Cross platform means "not windows", even on windows. Up a few abstraction levels though, and we can see that philosophy dominating in cloud space... "Micro-services" are API enabled single-use tools focused on doing 'one thing well' and yielding coordination responsibility to higher level applications and not assuming as little as possible about their end-use. Tool silos to support new unforeseen use-cases. Even more emblematic of the Unix philosophy in cloud space is the emergence and growing popularity of "serverless" solutions: hyper focused single-use tools directly integrated into the computing environment. A single function, pumping between cloud services or transforming some text, "freed" from infrastructure. In days of old we had to build up the foundations -- text manipulation, process stats, diff capabilities -- but based on that amazing ecosystem the new generations of those tools are freed to focus on new problems and speak a more abstract and higher level language -- APIs, event queues, NLP services... Just like how some primates started grunting, and then they grunted numbers, and then they made satellites and then conquered mars with robots. Shoulders of giants, and all that :)
• nlawalker 9y ago
  Joel Spolsky talks about this (as a somewhat adversarial tactic, even if it's not purposely so) in "Fire and Motion"[1] "Watch out when your competition fires at you. Do they just want to force you to keep busy reacting to their volleys, so you can’t move forward? Think of the history of data access strategies to come out of Microsoft. ODBC, RDO, DAO, ADO, OLEDB, now ADO.NET – All New! Are these technological imperatives? The result of an incompetent design group that needs to reinvent data access every goddamn year? (That’s probably it, actually.) But the end result is just cover fire. The competition has no choice but to spend all their time porting and keeping up, time that they can’t spend writing new features. Look closely at the software landscape. The companies that do well are the ones who rely least on big companies and don’t have to spend all their cycles catching up and reimplementing and fixing bugs that crop up only on Windows XP. The companies who stumble are the ones who spend too much time reading tea leaves to figure out the future direction of Microsoft. People get worried about .NET and decide to rewrite their whole architecture for .NET because they think they have to. Microsoft is shooting at you, and it’s just cover fire so that they can move forward and you can’t, because this is how the game is played, Bubby. Are you going to support Hailstorm? SOAP? RDF? Are you supporting it because your customers need it, or because someone is firing at you and you feel like you have to respond? The sales teams of the big companies understand cover fire. They go into their customers and say, “OK, you don’t have to buy from us. Buy from the best vendor. But make sure that you get a product that supports (XML / SOAP / CDE / J2EE) because otherwise you’ll be Locked In The Trunk.” Then when the little companies try to sell into that account, all they hear is obedient CTOs parrotting “Do you have J2EE?” And they have to waste all their time building in J2EE even if it doesn’t really make any sales, and gives them no opportunity to distinguish themselves. It’s a checkbox feature — you do it because you need the checkbox saying you have it, but nobody will use it or needs it. And it’s cover fire. [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/01/06/fire-and-motion/
  • paganel 9y ago
    This post made be nostalgic for that period which started in 2002-2003 (just after the dot-com crash ) up to 2008-2009 (when FB and Twitter emerged and when Google "changed" its skin to a full ad company), when everything worth reading was being published on blogs, when people (myself included) still believed in the open web (we were all very busy bashing SOAP) and when it wasn't all about IPOs and earning obscene amounts of money (it's also the period when this website was put online and when its founder was just a respected blogger, LISP-er and former Yahoo employee). Good times.
• brudgers 9y ago
  A description of -- not a name for -- is corporate control of an open source project. Trying to keep up with Angular or Kubernetes or Go is not a problem at the Google from whence they come because the technologies are primarily used by and hence primarily designed for use by teams. Not individual developers. A team's brain can schedule a time where part of it is training or studying while the rest of it is making progress on the task at hand. A team's brain can resolve ambiguity and complexity more easily because it has multiple human brains and those brains have different strengths and experiences. A single developer can't duplicate a brain. A small team of developers can't replicate the larger multi-team brain of a Google org-chart. Google org-charts are the context for which its tools are designed. The same is true of other corporate open source technology bundles like React and AWS. People kick themselves for not grokking technologies like Kuberentes without realizing that it wasn't really designed for their use case, isn't documented to be easy to pick up, and isn't managed with the cognitive load of individuals in mind. The time scales around which these technologies are designed are FTE-months or years. If a two pizza team can get up to speed in a month, it means an individual will probably take about a year. Given equal cognitive efficiency.
  • mancerayder 9y ago
    These are excellent points and very interesting food-for-thought, the 'organizational thinking' that leads to the tools being terribly complex and steep to learn for individuals. But don't these tools have product managers, and don't product managers create tools to serve customers? The only cynical viewpoint that I can think of for artificial (or lazy) complexity is consulting dollars.
    • icebraining 9y ago
      Google does consulting now?
      • lugg 9y ago
        Now? If you spend enough they always have.
      • 9y ago
• m_ke 9y ago
  Same thing in deep learning. I already had to dump half of my code because of theano, as well as api changes in keras and tensorflow that made it a pain to load some of my old models in newer versions of the frameworks. Now I'm rewriting a bunch of it in pytorch while anxiously waiting for 0.4 to come out (no idea when) and break all of my models again.
• avaer 9y ago
  I just call it an ad. It is after all the core competency of the prominent stewards of open source. The software is the ad, the tangential service is the product; keeping up is the infinite sales call that requires no calls. This is the price of free.
• riazrizvi 9y ago
  It's usually framed as the Build Vs Buy question. When do you stop your search for an adequate ready-made solution and just build it yourself?
• jacques_chester 9y ago
  > It's like the authority to create goes from the individual first-principles (by necessity) maker, to the control over development being in the hands of an external group, and then all your time is spent keeping up with what they're doing. This is a fundamental economic question: buy or build? Buying involves search costs ("all your time is spent keeping up"), building involves the cost of ... building. Often the line shifts because of gains from trade/specialisation and the deepening structure of production. As products become more featuresome, it becomes more economical for producers to specialise in part of the problem. They become better at that part than others are. It quickly becomes impossible for any single producer to out-produce the combined output of specialists. As a side note, the tension between the cost of searching and the cost of doing it yourself is believed to be why firms can emerge out of "pure" markets. It also suggests an economic reason for why software projects grow at their margin and another reason for why NIH is so attractive.
• drawkbox 9y ago
  There aught to be a name to the tendency that as tools get better and better, the more your time goes from having your mind in technical-space to social and news-space. It seems like a form of bike shedding mixed with busy work. Nearly all of it takes away from the actual product being built.
• bringtheaction 9y ago
  Is there anything that can be done about this other than to just accept it I wonder.