3 ms·

> As the primary net effect of software is to facilitate bureaucratic complexity it is therefor essential that software projects fail if society is to functio

> As the primary net effect of software is to facilitate bureaucratic complexity it is therefor essential that software projects fail if society is to function effectively. This is a short-sighted and overly pessimistic view of the role of software. Let's bring in some sorely needed optimism that's especially relevant to the current pandemic: https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2020/04/05/ANewHope.html https://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2020/04/05/ANewHope.ht... Another area where software is actually good for the world is accessibility. Lots of people with disabilities, including me and several of my friends, are able to live independent and happy lives largely thanks to software such as screen readers, speech synthesizers (useful for both blind people and people who can't speak), optical character recognition, and speech recognition. Not to mention that many products and services that are merely convenient for able-bodied people are life-changing for us. So I feel bad for people who are so caught up in the world of software that merely increases bureaucratic complexity, that they've lost sight of all of the good that software is doing, or at least don't get to contribute to that kind of software.

bxparks 6y ago
Yes, I think that the highlighted statement is overly hyperbolic. A better one would be something like: "A major effect of software is to facilitate bureaucratic complexity, therefore it is beneficial for some projects to fail." This revised statement would then lead to an interesting discussion about which software projects are beneficial to society and which should be allowed to fail. I would agree that a lot of enterprise software tend to increase workflow complexity. I think that's because in a corporate setting, the people with purchasing powers often don't understand how software technologies works, and they aren't the ones using the system.
inamiyar 6y ago
I agree, the accessibility point is important precisely because a lot of the growth of these bureaucracies is to accommodate more people. Being able to identify why these bureaucracies are growing (hint: it's not just because they can) allows us to better solve the problem, which is not software getting better (imo). An old(er) post that is vaguely relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21848860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21848860 An interesting look at the end of what makes projects slow down, and possibly insights into why bureaucracies grow.
xwdv 6y ago
If you could guarantee every individual in a system would be competent enough to be afforded a greater degree of independence, we would not need bureaucratic complexity. Unfortunately as the number of individuals grows larger, you cannot. Bureaucracy provides resilience against incompetence.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
perfunctory 6y ago
> Well, there was one group of people who don’t often get mentioned; but without them the Pandemic would have been a hundred times worse than it was. > Really? Who? > The programmers. Wow. This is the pinnacle of narcissism. How about another group of people who don't get mentioned as often, say Chinese workers who slave away at foxconn factories. Maybe this piece wouldn't read as bad if it wasn't written by a programmer.

bxparks 6y ago

Yes, I think that the highlighted statement is overly hyperbolic. A better one would be something like: "A major effect of software is to facilitate bureaucratic complexity, therefore it is beneficial for some projects to fail." This revised statement would then lead to an interesting discussion about which software projects are beneficial to society and which should be allowed to fail. I would agree that a lot of enterprise software tend to increase workflow complexity. I think that's because in a corporate setting, the people with purchasing powers often don't understand how software technologies works, and they aren't the ones using the system.

inamiyar 6y ago

I agree, the accessibility point is important precisely because a lot of the growth of these bureaucracies is to accommodate more people. Being able to identify why these bureaucracies are growing (hint: it's not just because they can) allows us to better solve the problem, which is not software getting better (imo). An old(er) post that is vaguely relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21848860 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21848860 An interesting look at the end of what makes projects slow down, and possibly insights into why bureaucracies grow.

xwdv 6y ago

If you could guarantee every individual in a system would be competent enough to be afforded a greater degree of independence, we would not need bureaucratic complexity. Unfortunately as the number of individuals grows larger, you cannot. Bureaucracy provides resilience against incompetence.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

perfunctory 6y ago

> Well, there was one group of people who don’t often get mentioned; but without them the Pandemic would have been a hundred times worse than it was. > Really? Who? > The programmers. Wow. This is the pinnacle of narcissism. How about another group of people who don't get mentioned as often, say Chinese workers who slave away at foxconn factories. Maybe this piece wouldn't read as bad if it wasn't written by a programmer.