3 ms·

> If you took my comment to mean that writing the code makes me the expert on all possible implementations or choices for the solution, or that I am best qualif

> If you took my comment to mean that writing the code makes me the expert on all possible implementations or choices for the solution, or that I am best qualified to decide what the best solution is, I must have communicated poorly. No, I didn't think that. You're all good there. > Writing the code makes me the expert in that code. Meaning how it works. Go back and reread the bottom of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30019146#30040731 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30019146#30040731 that started this sub-thread. Does this definition of 'expert' really help in any way? Ok, so some author wrote some code, they're expert in that code. Big whoop. I don't want to use that code. I wrote a shitty simpler version of what you wrote, now I'm an expert, you're an expert. How is this helpful? I think the only expertise that matters is domain expertise. Software should be trying to communicate domain expertise to anyone reading it. So that anyone who wants to can import it into their brain. On demand.

dpark 5y ago
The “expert in the code” matters in terms of siloing. That was the context where I mentioned it. The engineers who work in an area all the time and know the code best are typically best equipped to make the next changes there. Hence a silo. Maybe I completely misunderstood your comment about late binding experts? But stepping back for a moment, I’m increasingly confused about what your thesis here is. You’ve clarified that it’s not actually about abstraction. It’s also apparently not about clearly factoring code (though maybe you think that contributes to problems?). What is the actual thesis? Engineers should be experts in the entire code base? Code is in general too hard to understand? Something else? It feels like we’re discussing mostly tangents and I’ve missed what you intended to say. If I understood your message, I might have a better mental model for the utility of copying code.
- akkartik 5y ago
  Yeah that's a failure on my part. Like I said, I've spent ten years trying to articulate it and spent a few hours in conversation with you, and I still can't seem to get my actual thesis across. I don't think another attempt right now will help where all else before it has failed :) How about we pause for a bit, and we can pick it up again in a few hours. Perhaps even over email or something, because this back and forth is likely not helping anyone else. My email is in my profile.
  - dpark 5y ago
    I’m good with pausing. Maybe we can chat again another time. :) Have a good evening (or whatever time of day)!
- akkartik 5y ago
  Here's another attempt, a day and a half later. My thesis, if you will. Before we invented software, the world has gradually refined the ability to depend on lots of people for services. When we buy a shoe we rely on maybe 10,000 distinct groups of people. When we write software we bring the same social model of organization, but all the vulnerabilities and data breaches we keep having show that it doesn't work. https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/features-are-faults-redux https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/features-are-faults-redux enumerates (in better words than mine) several examples where services made subtly different assumptions, and the disconnects make their combination insecure. Since we don't know how to combine services as reliably in software as in non-software, we need to be much more selective in the services we depend on. A computer or app just can't depend on 10,000 distinct groups of people with any hope of being secure.

dpark 5y ago

The “expert in the code” matters in terms of siloing. That was the context where I mentioned it. The engineers who work in an area all the time and know the code best are typically best equipped to make the next changes there. Hence a silo. Maybe I completely misunderstood your comment about late binding experts? But stepping back for a moment, I’m increasingly confused about what your thesis here is. You’ve clarified that it’s not actually about abstraction. It’s also apparently not about clearly factoring code (though maybe you think that contributes to problems?). What is the actual thesis? Engineers should be experts in the entire code base? Code is in general too hard to understand? Something else? It feels like we’re discussing mostly tangents and I’ve missed what you intended to say. If I understood your message, I might have a better mental model for the utility of copying code.

akkartik 5y ago
Yeah that's a failure on my part. Like I said, I've spent ten years trying to articulate it and spent a few hours in conversation with you, and I still can't seem to get my actual thesis across. I don't think another attempt right now will help where all else before it has failed :) How about we pause for a bit, and we can pick it up again in a few hours. Perhaps even over email or something, because this back and forth is likely not helping anyone else. My email is in my profile.
- dpark 5y ago
  I’m good with pausing. Maybe we can chat again another time. :) Have a good evening (or whatever time of day)!
akkartik 5y ago
Here's another attempt, a day and a half later. My thesis, if you will. Before we invented software, the world has gradually refined the ability to depend on lots of people for services. When we buy a shoe we rely on maybe 10,000 distinct groups of people. When we write software we bring the same social model of organization, but all the vulnerabilities and data breaches we keep having show that it doesn't work. https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/features-are-faults-redux https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/features-are-faults-redux enumerates (in better words than mine) several examples where services made subtly different assumptions, and the disconnects make their combination insecure. Since we don't know how to combine services as reliably in software as in non-software, we need to be much more selective in the services we depend on. A computer or app just can't depend on 10,000 distinct groups of people with any hope of being secure.