4 ms·

To be fair, I don't agree with this point of view at all. Things in the physical world break down beacuse they are made of matter, and the entire concept of "w

To be fair, I don't agree with this point of view at all. Things in the physical world break down beacuse they are made of matter, and the entire concept of "working" is a very simplified modeling of their behaviour that doesn't include second-order effects like tear,consumption of materials etc. Code, on the other hand, is a social constrution but entirely confined in an abstract and mathematical world. The _only_ reason we still don't have a reliable and solid code infrastructure (in the sense explained by the article) is our inability as a community to once and for all define a solid foundation for the principles of computing. Hence all the hacked together languages, tools and frameworks that people have piled on each other over the decades. If one century of efforts hasn't been enough, fine. But we absolutely can work towards that goal.

throw0101a 6y ago
> Code, on the other hand, is a social constrution but entirely confined in an abstract and mathematical world. Brian Cantrill had a good observation in a 2007 Google TechTalk introducing Dtrace: > In software the blueprints are the machine. In software once you design the thing you've built it: the design is the machine. That's why the waterfall model is so fundamentally flawed. This idea that you could design the design before you design it, which is what the waterfall model is essentially saying, is flawed. Software is both, it's both information and machine. (@3m40s) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6chLw2aodYQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6chLw2aodYQ I originally ran across it on Google Video: * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8002801113289007228 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8002801113289007228
drewcoo 6y ago
Not sure I agree with this view of software. Social constructs are not immutable any more than physical ones. They're more likely to change, from what I've seen. Making software is about groups of people interacting, side effects of the software, and lossy interfaces more than it is about mathematics.
blackbrokkoli 6y ago
That is an extremely simplified view of non-software. Hardware standards shift because of an Apple PR camopaign. We stopped using zeppelins only after one disaster of several dozens made very public by live radio coverage. Non-Sufficiently standardized rockets explode because countries can't pick a measurement system. The auto industry in a country changes overnight because a dictator decides that the roadside to travel on shall be switched on a whim. Just like software, infrastructure/hardware/whatever is an unfathomably complex web made from science, faith, half-knowledge, geopolitics, coincidences, rules, dick moves, physics and random tweets. I don't think we are winning anything by trying to lift software onto some kind of pedestal of specialness in every regard...
andrewjl 6y ago
> is our inability as a community to once and for all define a solid foundation for the principles of computing Is this possible? If code is a social construction as you say, then wouldn't it be impossible to arrive at this point unless society remains unchanging? > Hence all the hacked together languages, tools and frameworks that people have piled on each other over the decades. This hints at the what is IMO the real problem, software is hard to replace with confidence. Sure, it's easy to swap one version for another, but doing so with the full understanding of what will change...is basically impossible for any non-toy project today. And there are exceptions to this, but they're the "exception that proves the rule" type.
joe_biden123 6y ago
I remember reading an article about coding at nasa, like the code that ran the moon landing ship. I can't remember the link but you can probably find something. the way they code is very careful and deliberate. everyone has an office, none of this "rockstar" nonsense that you have at startups, they are all serious people, the deadlines are sensible, no one pulls all nighters, they come in at 9 and get out at 5. absolutely nothing gets written without documenting it. no line of gets changed without the reason for the change written in documentation. everything is carefully panned. needless to say the code got the ship to the moon and back. this is how coding should be done

throw0101a 6y ago

> Code, on the other hand, is a social constrution but entirely confined in an abstract and mathematical world. Brian Cantrill had a good observation in a 2007 Google TechTalk introducing Dtrace: > In software the blueprints are the machine. In software once you design the thing you've built it: the design is the machine. That's why the waterfall model is so fundamentally flawed. This idea that you could design the design before you design it, which is what the waterfall model is essentially saying, is flawed. Software is both, it's both information and machine. (@3m40s) * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6chLw2aodYQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6chLw2aodYQ I originally ran across it on Google Video: * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8002801113289007228 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8002801113289007228

drewcoo 6y ago

Not sure I agree with this view of software. Social constructs are not immutable any more than physical ones. They're more likely to change, from what I've seen. Making software is about groups of people interacting, side effects of the software, and lossy interfaces more than it is about mathematics.

blackbrokkoli 6y ago

That is an extremely simplified view of non-software. Hardware standards shift because of an Apple PR camopaign. We stopped using zeppelins only after one disaster of several dozens made very public by live radio coverage. Non-Sufficiently standardized rockets explode because countries can't pick a measurement system. The auto industry in a country changes overnight because a dictator decides that the roadside to travel on shall be switched on a whim. Just like software, infrastructure/hardware/whatever is an unfathomably complex web made from science, faith, half-knowledge, geopolitics, coincidences, rules, dick moves, physics and random tweets. I don't think we are winning anything by trying to lift software onto some kind of pedestal of specialness in every regard...

andrewjl 6y ago

> is our inability as a community to once and for all define a solid foundation for the principles of computing Is this possible? If code is a social construction as you say, then wouldn't it be impossible to arrive at this point unless society remains unchanging? > Hence all the hacked together languages, tools and frameworks that people have piled on each other over the decades. This hints at the what is IMO the real problem, software is hard to replace with confidence. Sure, it's easy to swap one version for another, but doing so with the full understanding of what will change...is basically impossible for any non-toy project today. And there are exceptions to this, but they're the "exception that proves the rule" type.

joe_biden123 6y ago

I remember reading an article about coding at nasa, like the code that ran the moon landing ship. I can't remember the link but you can probably find something. the way they code is very careful and deliberate. everyone has an office, none of this "rockstar" nonsense that you have at startups, they are all serious people, the deadlines are sensible, no one pulls all nighters, they come in at 9 and get out at 5. absolutely nothing gets written without documenting it. no line of gets changed without the reason for the change written in documentation. everything is carefully panned. needless to say the code got the ship to the moon and back. this is how coding should be done