9 ms·

When is the world of software going to wake up? All programming languages suck, in one way or another. All frontend/backend paradigms suck, in one way or anothe

When is the world of software going to wake up? All programming languages suck, in one way or another. All frontend/backend paradigms suck, in one way or another. This constant churn of new, new, new is a waste. It gets replaced every few years, meaning all the time, effort and money sucked into it is gone. And engineers re-learn the same lessons over, and over, and over again. All so software engineers can be happy, because they just like doing new things in newly complicated ways. It's like changing how we build houses every few years just for fun, with no benefit to the people eventually living in that home. We're definitely not saving them money or building them any faster.

devoutsalsa 5y ago
The churn keeps me employed :)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bsuvc 5y ago
No offense, but that’s sort of a bitter take on software development and reads like a middle manager who has contempt for software engineers.
- sillyquiet 5y ago
  I don't think this is the case at all, maaaaybe it's a tad cynical in tone, but I think overall it's a pragmatic and realistic view of software engineering, ESPECIALLY web development. I say that as someone who is been in the industry since just before the first .com bust, and have seen a lot of this cycle.
- ihateolives 5y ago
  No offense, but you have probably not been in software development for 25+ years. I've been doing web dev for 30 yrs and it's kind of funny to see everyone inventing server side rendering, plain old html and php again. It's a spiral, not a circle and we're a bit wiser and performant this time, but much of it has been done and gone in some way or another.
  - anhner 5y ago
    If you think this is the same as "old html and php again" then you haven't understood the article.
  - bsuvc 5y ago
    > No offense, but you have probably not been in software development for 25+ years. You're wrong about this. You and I see things differently. You see things as never being new and "plain old X and Y again". I try to see things with fresh eyes, yet still with the benefit of my 25+ years in the industry. I try not to make assumptions that limit my thinking about something. Some might call it a beginner's mindset, and it has served me well.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > I've been doing web dev for 30 yrs That would be impressive, since Mosaic is only 29 years old at this point :) I don't thinking people are reinventing server side rendering. Rediscovering it, perhaps. It has always been here, along with plain old HTML and PHP. The modern toolbox of JS-based toolboxes exists for a reason: all the things that you can't do (or can only do very clunkily) with server-side implementations. That hasn't changed. What people wanted from a web page in 1994 is so utterly different than what many web pages are expected to do now. If it's a spiral, it's one that is spiralling out, not in, as the scope expands significantly.
alisonatwork 5y ago
After having been in this industry for 20+ years, I can pretty confidently say the world of software will never wake up. It's just been an endless cycle of adding abstractions, removing them again, using back end languages on the front end, using front end languages on the back end, using relational databases instead of a key value store, using key value stores instead of a relational database, unit tests over integration tests, integration tests over unit tests, silver bullet framework after silver bullet framework. My feeling now is that in the greater scheme of things none of the technology choices really matter all that much, the main thing is if the software is written in a clear, documented and maintainable fashion. Unfortunately people will still throw that away and pointlessly rewrite it in a few years, so making the choice to contribute in that fashion is more a matter of professional pride than practical utility. Arguably it's better for your career to let go of that pride and just embrace the constant unnecessary rewrite process. I do wonder if there are still some corners of software development which aren't like this. Perhaps in public universities or government?
- jack_riminton 5y ago
  Agree. Specifically on the point of "clear, documented and maintainable" I think this is where languages such as Ruby (and therefore Rails) shines. Since it was "optimized for developer happiness" (https://news.learnenough.com/ruby-optimized-for-programmer-happiness https://news.learnenough.com/ruby-optimized-for-programmer-h...) it's more likely to be easier to understand, document and maintain.
  - hfourm 5y ago
    Unfortunately in practice, there is so much ruby/rails magic going on that most Rails projects end up in terrible shape. It's kind of a catch-22, and tons of companies have overcome it, but rails by far has the "least long term maintainable" defaults. Good for quick prototypes/small teams but bad for large and scaling teams
    - captaincaveman 5y ago
      This was my experience with rails (to be fair, some years ago). Each new version reinvented some huge chunk of the previous version with magic all the way down. Basically why I stopped using it despite having invested lots of time.
asimpletune 5y ago
I think no one is going to necessarily disagree with what you’re saying, but I’d also ask what is the point? It’s almost tautological. Of course this is the case, so does that mean new things shouldn’t be made because it’s been pre-decided it would be a waste? I can’t say I agree with that, even though I agree with the premise that all PLs suck. Maybe this stuff is just hard, and also maybe part of that is because as humans we’re pretty limited. So I think we just have to deal with it and try. I don’t love front end stuff, for example, and it kind of annoys me at times that everything gets reinvented over and over, to great fanfare no less. However at the end of the day, I realize it’s because we’re limited and one of those limitations is not being smart enough to do everything right the first time. That makes sense and isn’t like a knock on people, just the truth. And these new frameworks and paradigms that keep getting made indicate to me that things are reaching some stability, but aren’t there yet. Like, a lot of native stuff has been literally miles ahead for years, which is why you don’t really see a ton of innovation in that spaces, aside from adding new frameworks to support new sensors. But you still see stuff getting made to support more privacy aware stuff, which is a shame because it could have been that way from the beginning. Anyway, I think it’s fine for both to be true: PLs suck because tech is hard and people are limited, and we keep trying new stuff because it’s just both there yet. (Note: wrote this on my phone so maybe it rambles and is incoherent or has mistakes)
Bancakes 5y ago
At this point learning C++ standards is like learning new frameworks. There is no escape other than reclusing to C (maybe not so bad!)
chrisweekly 5y ago
If you can only see the churn and froth, that doesn't mean there aren't great waves to surf; you might just need to paddle out to a better spot. https://remix.run https://remix.run is a prime example. It's new, and better, and simpler.
- captaincaveman 5y ago
  It's better for new people joining, each cycle brings some improvement over the last typically. It also equalizes the playing field every few years, you become an expert in the latest new thing as there isn't an old guard. Some new web framework comes along, you can invest in that and become leet, where its very difficult to start new in react today and achieve that. This isn't to say past experience isn't valuable or helps you adopt things more quickly, can make you cynical about the new shiny and sometimes miss out on the actual improvements, even if small. I
rileyphone 5y ago
Maybe once we lift the abstractions from the clutches of the Von Neumann architecture and reintroduce spatial and sensory mechanisms to our programming environments? Especially with server-client applications, the underlying topologies are often ad-hoc and brittle, which contributes to the complexity in sneaky ways. Jaron Lanier, a pioneer of VR, has a concept of "phenotropic programming" which is almost like OOP taken to the extreme - objects can only sense and act on each other in a virtual world akin to the real one [0]. If you want to really fall down a rabbit hole, Alan Kay has been espousing similar themes for years. He of course was the driving force behind Smalltalk, which did things in the 70s that still seem hard to do. Look at the examples built by middle schoolers in [1] - super impressive stuff! I personally believe OOP got a really bad rap by the bastardizations of C++ and Java, and a principled reframing of it may be what takes us to the next level of programming. [0] https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-why-gordian-software-has-convinced-me-to-believe-in-the-reality-of-cats https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-why-gordian-s... [1] https://www.dgsiegel.net/files/refs/Kay,%20Goldberg%20-%20Personal%20Dynamic%20Media.pdf https://www.dgsiegel.net/files/refs/Kay,%20Goldberg%20-%20Pe...
jatone 5y ago
laugh 1. software is a VERY new discipline. its also one of the most malleable. I doubt we'll ever stop seeing churn in this space. 2. we don't reinvent the how we build houses each year. you can safely ignore all this new fangled web things if you want. 3. churn is also domain specific. we've more or less stopped inventing drastically new APIs at the OS/system level. 4. software for UIs have never been great. we are still learning how to build them. most of the major players in UI software still exist, windows, java, macosx (cocoa?), QT, GTK, Enlightment, and HTML/CSS/javascript. finally software will continue to evolve as base layers add the ability for higher layers to do things differently. for example as CPU get more and more vector operations that can dramatically change how we write code. this churn is a positive not a negative on the industry.
oraphalous 5y ago
This. So much this. Futhermore - does it all really matter that much when most of us are stuck with delivery managers screaming: FEATURE, FEATURE, FEATURE in our faces, such that there is never enough time to use any toolset in an optimal way.

devoutsalsa 5y ago

The churn keeps me employed :)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bsuvc 5y ago

No offense, but that’s sort of a bitter take on software development and reads like a middle manager who has contempt for software engineers.

sillyquiet 5y ago
I don't think this is the case at all, maaaaybe it's a tad cynical in tone, but I think overall it's a pragmatic and realistic view of software engineering, ESPECIALLY web development. I say that as someone who is been in the industry since just before the first .com bust, and have seen a lot of this cycle.
ihateolives 5y ago
No offense, but you have probably not been in software development for 25+ years. I've been doing web dev for 30 yrs and it's kind of funny to see everyone inventing server side rendering, plain old html and php again. It's a spiral, not a circle and we're a bit wiser and performant this time, but much of it has been done and gone in some way or another.
- anhner 5y ago
  If you think this is the same as "old html and php again" then you haven't understood the article.
- bsuvc 5y ago
  > No offense, but you have probably not been in software development for 25+ years. You're wrong about this. You and I see things differently. You see things as never being new and "plain old X and Y again". I try to see things with fresh eyes, yet still with the benefit of my 25+ years in the industry. I try not to make assumptions that limit my thinking about something. Some might call it a beginner's mindset, and it has served me well.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > I've been doing web dev for 30 yrs That would be impressive, since Mosaic is only 29 years old at this point :) I don't thinking people are reinventing server side rendering. Rediscovering it, perhaps. It has always been here, along with plain old HTML and PHP. The modern toolbox of JS-based toolboxes exists for a reason: all the things that you can't do (or can only do very clunkily) with server-side implementations. That hasn't changed. What people wanted from a web page in 1994 is so utterly different than what many web pages are expected to do now. If it's a spiral, it's one that is spiralling out, not in, as the scope expands significantly.

alisonatwork 5y ago

After having been in this industry for 20+ years, I can pretty confidently say the world of software will never wake up. It's just been an endless cycle of adding abstractions, removing them again, using back end languages on the front end, using front end languages on the back end, using relational databases instead of a key value store, using key value stores instead of a relational database, unit tests over integration tests, integration tests over unit tests, silver bullet framework after silver bullet framework. My feeling now is that in the greater scheme of things none of the technology choices really matter all that much, the main thing is if the software is written in a clear, documented and maintainable fashion. Unfortunately people will still throw that away and pointlessly rewrite it in a few years, so making the choice to contribute in that fashion is more a matter of professional pride than practical utility. Arguably it's better for your career to let go of that pride and just embrace the constant unnecessary rewrite process. I do wonder if there are still some corners of software development which aren't like this. Perhaps in public universities or government?

jack_riminton 5y ago
Agree. Specifically on the point of "clear, documented and maintainable" I think this is where languages such as Ruby (and therefore Rails) shines. Since it was "optimized for developer happiness" (https://news.learnenough.com/ruby-optimized-for-programmer-happiness https://news.learnenough.com/ruby-optimized-for-programmer-h...) it's more likely to be easier to understand, document and maintain.
- hfourm 5y ago
  Unfortunately in practice, there is so much ruby/rails magic going on that most Rails projects end up in terrible shape. It's kind of a catch-22, and tons of companies have overcome it, but rails by far has the "least long term maintainable" defaults. Good for quick prototypes/small teams but bad for large and scaling teams
  - captaincaveman 5y ago
    This was my experience with rails (to be fair, some years ago). Each new version reinvented some huge chunk of the previous version with magic all the way down. Basically why I stopped using it despite having invested lots of time.

asimpletune 5y ago

I think no one is going to necessarily disagree with what you’re saying, but I’d also ask what is the point? It’s almost tautological. Of course this is the case, so does that mean new things shouldn’t be made because it’s been pre-decided it would be a waste? I can’t say I agree with that, even though I agree with the premise that all PLs suck. Maybe this stuff is just hard, and also maybe part of that is because as humans we’re pretty limited. So I think we just have to deal with it and try. I don’t love front end stuff, for example, and it kind of annoys me at times that everything gets reinvented over and over, to great fanfare no less. However at the end of the day, I realize it’s because we’re limited and one of those limitations is not being smart enough to do everything right the first time. That makes sense and isn’t like a knock on people, just the truth. And these new frameworks and paradigms that keep getting made indicate to me that things are reaching some stability, but aren’t there yet. Like, a lot of native stuff has been literally miles ahead for years, which is why you don’t really see a ton of innovation in that spaces, aside from adding new frameworks to support new sensors. But you still see stuff getting made to support more privacy aware stuff, which is a shame because it could have been that way from the beginning. Anyway, I think it’s fine for both to be true: PLs suck because tech is hard and people are limited, and we keep trying new stuff because it’s just both there yet. (Note: wrote this on my phone so maybe it rambles and is incoherent or has mistakes)

Bancakes 5y ago

At this point learning C++ standards is like learning new frameworks. There is no escape other than reclusing to C (maybe not so bad!)

chrisweekly 5y ago

If you can only see the churn and froth, that doesn't mean there aren't great waves to surf; you might just need to paddle out to a better spot. https://remix.run https://remix.run is a prime example. It's new, and better, and simpler.

captaincaveman 5y ago
It's better for new people joining, each cycle brings some improvement over the last typically. It also equalizes the playing field every few years, you become an expert in the latest new thing as there isn't an old guard. Some new web framework comes along, you can invest in that and become leet, where its very difficult to start new in react today and achieve that. This isn't to say past experience isn't valuable or helps you adopt things more quickly, can make you cynical about the new shiny and sometimes miss out on the actual improvements, even if small. I

rileyphone 5y ago

Maybe once we lift the abstractions from the clutches of the Von Neumann architecture and reintroduce spatial and sensory mechanisms to our programming environments? Especially with server-client applications, the underlying topologies are often ad-hoc and brittle, which contributes to the complexity in sneaky ways. Jaron Lanier, a pioneer of VR, has a concept of "phenotropic programming" which is almost like OOP taken to the extreme - objects can only sense and act on each other in a virtual world akin to the real one [0]. If you want to really fall down a rabbit hole, Alan Kay has been espousing similar themes for years. He of course was the driving force behind Smalltalk, which did things in the 70s that still seem hard to do. Look at the examples built by middle schoolers in [1] - super impressive stuff! I personally believe OOP got a really bad rap by the bastardizations of C++ and Java, and a principled reframing of it may be what takes us to the next level of programming. [0] https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-why-gordian-software-has-convinced-me-to-believe-in-the-reality-of-cats https://www.edge.org/conversation/jaron_lanier-why-gordian-s... [1] https://www.dgsiegel.net/files/refs/Kay,%20Goldberg%20-%20Personal%20Dynamic%20Media.pdf https://www.dgsiegel.net/files/refs/Kay,%20Goldberg%20-%20Pe...

jatone 5y ago

laugh 1. software is a VERY new discipline. its also one of the most malleable. I doubt we'll ever stop seeing churn in this space. 2. we don't reinvent the how we build houses each year. you can safely ignore all this new fangled web things if you want. 3. churn is also domain specific. we've more or less stopped inventing drastically new APIs at the OS/system level. 4. software for UIs have never been great. we are still learning how to build them. most of the major players in UI software still exist, windows, java, macosx (cocoa?), QT, GTK, Enlightment, and HTML/CSS/javascript. finally software will continue to evolve as base layers add the ability for higher layers to do things differently. for example as CPU get more and more vector operations that can dramatically change how we write code. this churn is a positive not a negative on the industry.

oraphalous 5y ago

This. So much this. Futhermore - does it all really matter that much when most of us are stuck with delivery managers screaming: FEATURE, FEATURE, FEATURE in our faces, such that there is never enough time to use any toolset in an optimal way.