4 ms·

Adding “architecture astronaut “ to my dictionary, such a nice term! Unfortunately, Carmack’s explanation of why this is a concern for Meta is unclear to me.

by kvark 5y ago

nextaccountic 5y ago
I think the origin of the term (or at least the first time I saw it) may be this 2001 article from Joel Spolsky, https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architecture-astronauts-scare-you/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architect...
tluyben2 5y ago
I assume he is afraid of people with lofty high level ideas in charge of pushing out products for the metaverse that are just not fun or even usable because they started top down, missing end user detail, while Carmack would start implementing the details instead and maybe the high level stuff emerges, maybe not, but at least you have products users want to use.
quitit 5y ago
I believe it’s meant to differentiate big ideas(hand waving) versus the difficulty in implementing the minutia of those ideas. The big idea is important, but it’s the implementation which determines if something is successful. The nomad and the iPod are both the same big idea - but implementation is different.
- kvark 5y ago
  That’s what confuses me. What does he expect from Mark, understanding the technical details of VR and such? Or not trusting Carmack to do his job well in getting the details right?
  - quitit 5y ago
    He does oscillate between what he believes the company is doing well and what they are not doing well in his view. I suppose the motivation here is that he does want the metaverse to happen, but he understands that if the company flubb it then it ruins it not just for their company but in the perception of the public’s eye - history is filled with examples of excellent ideas and technology that didn’t take off because they failed to engage the public’s imagination. I guess this is his way of saying you can’t achieve this by halves.
tinus_hn 5y ago
It’s about how you can get stuck on thinking about and implementing great architectures instead of actual usable products. Like never actually writing code because you keep getting stuck in debates about what programming language to use (or even about creating your own language to solve all problems).

Adding “architecture astronaut “ to my dictionary, such a nice term! Unfortunately, Carmack’s explanation of why this is a concern for Meta is unclear to me.

by kvark 5y ago

Adding “architecture astronaut “ to my dictionary, such a nice term! Unfortunately, Carmack’s explanation of why this is a concern for Meta is unclear to me.

nextaccountic 5y ago

I think the origin of the term (or at least the first time I saw it) may be this 2001 article from Joel Spolsky, https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architecture-astronauts-scare-you/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/04/21/dont-let-architect...

tluyben2 5y ago

I assume he is afraid of people with lofty high level ideas in charge of pushing out products for the metaverse that are just not fun or even usable because they started top down, missing end user detail, while Carmack would start implementing the details instead and maybe the high level stuff emerges, maybe not, but at least you have products users want to use.

quitit 5y ago

I believe it’s meant to differentiate big ideas(hand waving) versus the difficulty in implementing the minutia of those ideas. The big idea is important, but it’s the implementation which determines if something is successful. The nomad and the iPod are both the same big idea - but implementation is different.

kvark 5y ago
That’s what confuses me. What does he expect from Mark, understanding the technical details of VR and such? Or not trusting Carmack to do his job well in getting the details right?
- quitit 5y ago
  He does oscillate between what he believes the company is doing well and what they are not doing well in his view. I suppose the motivation here is that he does want the metaverse to happen, but he understands that if the company flubb it then it ruins it not just for their company but in the perception of the public’s eye - history is filled with examples of excellent ideas and technology that didn’t take off because they failed to engage the public’s imagination. I guess this is his way of saying you can’t achieve this by halves.

tinus_hn 5y ago

It’s about how you can get stuck on thinking about and implementing great architectures instead of actual usable products. Like never actually writing code because you keep getting stuck in debates about what programming language to use (or even about creating your own language to solve all problems).