3 ms·

What is finished ? I've made a rust implementation of handlebars rendering that passed all handlebars test cases (on the feature set I covered, namely everythi

What is finished ? I've made a rust implementation of handlebars rendering that passed all handlebars test cases (on the feature set I covered, namely everything that did not involved JS parsing and evaluation), put it in a lib, ran performance checks against other implementation (not stellar, but good enough) documented the design and common API use cases. Yet, it was not finished in the sense that it relied on third party compiler plugin with dependencies on APIs removed on rust 1.0 release. That experimental part was 100% what I wanted to play with, I didn't care much of the risk of being stuck in the end. So, my goals where met, I moved on, and finished depends only on the way you look at it. I suspect large part of stuff that get started goes stale for more or less the same circumstances: it is finished because the goal was toying from the start, even though the author might have been delusional on publishing a re-usable outcome.

bayindirh 5y ago
A project doesn't have to be that complicated to be useful. I've coded two utilities. One for converting IPs to their hex representation and back and linking it to various files automatically (for PXE booting), and another for using Mailgun from command line. Both tools are 2-3 hour jobs, running on production for years, and they meet all the requirements. OTOH, if you want to extend them, you can improve them leaps and bounds and they'd be never finished in my life. I love this quote from DaVinci: "Art is never finished only abandoned". I also consider software as a form of art (which we can debate if you feel), and in my book, software's never finished, only abandoned. And, to be honest, I love how software is never finished.
- MarcellusDrum 5y ago
  > I also consider software as a form of art (which we can debate if you feel) I've never thought of it this way, but I think I agree. Nonetheless, can you please explain this idea more? Its an interesting view.
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    Software can be considered as art from many perspectives IMHO. Some of these perspectives are UI, UX and internal architecture. Smaller parts like API design or implementation of a specific feature can be art in itself though. In my book, elegance and high quality design is important, however it's expensive. A good architecture needs a lot of work to build and even more work to keep it clean, because software tends to outgrow its design during iterations as it gets more features. This is the prime cause of software rot. An elegant architecture is easy to program and extend until you outgrow it. An elegant UI is a beauty to look at. An elegant UX has minimal mental load. OTOH, making all three happen at the same time is a very hard task. My experience is on systems side and high performance code. So I focus on architecture and UX. I try to make very performant and complicated applications very easy to use, almost making them too easy to use. This removes burden from user, it removes friction. The user accomplishes something complicated without much effort, yet the results are precise, accurate and most importantly correct. This is what I consider art. OTOH, I make sure that all custom controls are available to the user if the user needs. In all cases, developer and user gets joy from developing/using the application. It feels nice rather than a burden. It feels smooth, like an enjoyable road trip where you both enjoy the road and driving at the same time.

bayindirh 5y ago

A project doesn't have to be that complicated to be useful. I've coded two utilities. One for converting IPs to their hex representation and back and linking it to various files automatically (for PXE booting), and another for using Mailgun from command line. Both tools are 2-3 hour jobs, running on production for years, and they meet all the requirements. OTOH, if you want to extend them, you can improve them leaps and bounds and they'd be never finished in my life. I love this quote from DaVinci: "Art is never finished only abandoned". I also consider software as a form of art (which we can debate if you feel), and in my book, software's never finished, only abandoned. And, to be honest, I love how software is never finished.

MarcellusDrum 5y ago
> I also consider software as a form of art (which we can debate if you feel) I've never thought of it this way, but I think I agree. Nonetheless, can you please explain this idea more? Its an interesting view.
- bayindirh 5y ago
  Software can be considered as art from many perspectives IMHO. Some of these perspectives are UI, UX and internal architecture. Smaller parts like API design or implementation of a specific feature can be art in itself though. In my book, elegance and high quality design is important, however it's expensive. A good architecture needs a lot of work to build and even more work to keep it clean, because software tends to outgrow its design during iterations as it gets more features. This is the prime cause of software rot. An elegant architecture is easy to program and extend until you outgrow it. An elegant UI is a beauty to look at. An elegant UX has minimal mental load. OTOH, making all three happen at the same time is a very hard task. My experience is on systems side and high performance code. So I focus on architecture and UX. I try to make very performant and complicated applications very easy to use, almost making them too easy to use. This removes burden from user, it removes friction. The user accomplishes something complicated without much effort, yet the results are precise, accurate and most importantly correct. This is what I consider art. OTOH, I make sure that all custom controls are available to the user if the user needs. In all cases, developer and user gets joy from developing/using the application. It feels nice rather than a burden. It feels smooth, like an enjoyable road trip where you both enjoy the road and driving at the same time.