4 ms·

I am truly moved by what this small (probably one, maybe two person?) team has accomplished here. Just look at their code and its organization, while noting how

I am truly moved by what this small (probably one, maybe two person?) team has accomplished here. Just look at their code and its organization, while noting how languages like Rust, Nim, and Go show us how to tackle the software complexity in various software domains. Having been in the enterprise field for a handful of decades, I am convinced that work such as this is signaling a brave new world of software development that is just ahead of us -- small teams, phenomenal productivity, which needs to combine with a grasp of architecture processes to taken on complex IT stuff. After having been in the SAP, Dessault PLM, and Oracle database-centric industries for some decades now, and I am convinced that a new generation of software software engineers with imagination and willingness to learn aspects of the businesses they serve, they will take on these sprawling legacy systems with much less effort than we think it should take right now. Exiting times are ahead for those who use these opportunities, I'd say.

herrosheep 8y ago
I assumed, I guess incorrectly, that Racket was more than a 1-2 person team. Also was perturbed that they were only at a v0.4. Not sure how things like SAP and Oracle are valid in a conversation about Racket...
- elteto 8y ago
  FYI: This is Rocket, a web framework for Rust, not Racket, the programming language.
  - herrosheep 8y ago
    Ah my bad, assume we have to use a nightly build then?
    - nindalf 8y ago
      The link contains release notes for 0.4, which state that nightly is no longer required. An important milestone for the team, for sure.
      - Rusky 8y ago
        Not quite yet- that's a planned change for 0.5.
wongarsu 8y ago
> a brave new world of software development that is just ahead of us -- small teams, phenomenal productivity It's also the brave new world that lies behind us. Doom, one of the most influential computer games due to technical innovation, was created by a team of 3 programmers (and 8 non-programmers). Small teams of brilliant people can produce phenonemal results. Unfortunately in big companies a manager is not only measured by his results, but also by his budget and the number of people under him. The division of 100 people simply looks more impressive than the room of 10. So you end up hiring lots of (at best) mediocre programmers, pay them as little as possible, and use big architectures and processes designed to cope with idiots (Enterprise architectures and Enterprise processes, as we call them).
- mr_overalls 8y ago
  Calling anyone who isn't brilliant an idiot is a bit. . . uncharitable. Most of us here, myself included, (and probably you) are not rockstar/ninja programmers.
dmix 8y ago
While you're correct it's becoming more of the rule, this has been true a for a very long time. Clayton Christen wrote about this in 1997 with "The Innovator's Dilemma". He believed it was still repeatable in large organizations via 'intrapreneurship', which I'm not convinced is entirely true... considering the enterprises continued obsession with middle management and hierarchy, and top-down R&D.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

herrosheep 8y ago

I assumed, I guess incorrectly, that Racket was more than a 1-2 person team. Also was perturbed that they were only at a v0.4. Not sure how things like SAP and Oracle are valid in a conversation about Racket...

elteto 8y ago
FYI: This is Rocket, a web framework for Rust, not Racket, the programming language.
- herrosheep 8y ago
  Ah my bad, assume we have to use a nightly build then?
  - nindalf 8y ago
    The link contains release notes for 0.4, which state that nightly is no longer required. An important milestone for the team, for sure.
    - Rusky 8y ago
      Not quite yet- that's a planned change for 0.5.

wongarsu 8y ago

> a brave new world of software development that is just ahead of us -- small teams, phenomenal productivity It's also the brave new world that lies behind us. Doom, one of the most influential computer games due to technical innovation, was created by a team of 3 programmers (and 8 non-programmers). Small teams of brilliant people can produce phenonemal results. Unfortunately in big companies a manager is not only measured by his results, but also by his budget and the number of people under him. The division of 100 people simply looks more impressive than the room of 10. So you end up hiring lots of (at best) mediocre programmers, pay them as little as possible, and use big architectures and processes designed to cope with idiots (Enterprise architectures and Enterprise processes, as we call them).

mr_overalls 8y ago
Calling anyone who isn't brilliant an idiot is a bit. . . uncharitable. Most of us here, myself included, (and probably you) are not rockstar/ninja programmers.

dmix 8y ago

While you're correct it's becoming more of the rule, this has been true a for a very long time. Clayton Christen wrote about this in 1997 with "The Innovator's Dilemma". He believed it was still repeatable in large organizations via 'intrapreneurship', which I'm not convinced is entirely true... considering the enterprises continued obsession with middle management and hierarchy, and top-down R&D.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]