3 ms·
Alternatively, one could take the view that low-abstraction languages are designed to turn programmers into replaceable parts. This benefits the “low-quality f
by someguydave 6y ago
Alternatively, one could take the view that low-abstraction languages are designed to turn programmers into replaceable parts. This benefits the “low-quality for low-price” software vendor culture at the expense of programmer’s pay and status and also at the expense of the customer’s ownership and quality experience.
- mumblemumble 6y agoThis attitude, both from the business side and from the developer side, has always struck me as an egregious misapprehension about where the value in software development lies. It's never about the code. It's about getting the job done, and the code is just a tool for getting it done. And getting the job done is ultimately about domain expertise, or design skill, or engineering acumen, or any number of more abstract skills. When developers get all protectionist about complex technical tooling instead of focusing on perfecting their ability to get the actual job done, that's a moral own goal. It doesn't challenge the idea that developer skills are inherently low-value and replaceable, it takes the idea as a given, and asks, "OK, since we're inherently low-value and replaceable, how can we artificially make it harder to replace us?" Me, I don't want to respond to the idea that I'm just a code monkey by trying to be the fanciest code monkey imaginable. I don't want to be a code monkey in the first place.