Software does suffer from obvious defects. Though you may not get total agreement on what those obvious defects are, you would get some substantial agreement at

Software does suffer from obvious defects. Though you may not get total agreement on what those obvious defects are, you would get some substantial agreement at the same time. One of the major effects in software right now is that we pour such a staggering amount of effort into our current forms and patterns that it can create an overwhelming barrier to "better ideas", because there's just no way that even a much better idea can come out of the gate and compete against the behemoth of all the work done with the current paradigms. So we're stuck with patterns written into our systems from 40-50 years ago that can only very slowly change. As a more concrete example, while my criticism of some things like "visual programming" as "the brand new paradigm that is going to revolutionize programming because nobody has thought of it before" has gotten down to the point I can virtually just copy & paste them to almost anyone who tries them (in the spirit of [1]), the flip side of my polished criticism is that comparing software platforms with literally billions of person-hours poured into them to some guy's hobby project, itself by necessity mostly built on the platform that embodies the wrong paradigm and tends to force itself on to the new project in various ways if it want to come out of the gate able to deal with real problems like "parsing XML" or whathaveyou, isn't necessarily a fair representation of what the project could be if it also had billions of hours poured into it. Unfortunately, as is the way of these things, if it's going to "revolutionize programming" it's got to actually be able to beat the current systems in some useful manner, fairly conclusively, right out of the gate. As another example, no points for guessing that in a hundred years, computer CPUs aren't going to look much like a modern CPU. Perhaps there won't even be a "Central" processing unit anymore. But I promise you the current architecture will probably hang on longer than you'd guess (I wanted to say "50 years" and honestly got a bit gunshy about that... for all their orders of magnitude more transistors modern CPUs are clearly related to what we had 50 years ago today!). It's going to be hard for that new paradigm to compete with something with so much effort poured into it. [1]: https://trog.qgl.org/20081217/the-why-your-anti-spam-idea-wont-work-checklist/ https://trog.qgl.org/20081217/the-why-your-anti-spam-idea-wo...