4 ms·

But are they building software tools that are useful and stable enough to distribute? That's the level of capability he is talking about.

• aahortwwy 4y ago
  That's not what the linked Twitter thread is talking about, nor is it how I interpret "make a quick app for yourself, or make something small to share with the world" or "make a quick application to accomplish a small task." Those things are eminently achievable without having to embrace the level of complexity that's so popular in professional software development. And I actually think the level of capability you're talking about is within closer reach than most people realize. Certainly it's much easier now than it was even 10 years ago. Probably not something that a non-programmer can accomplish on day 1, but I'm not sure there's many crafts that can be learned that quickly.
  • wrp 4y ago
    By "distribute," I didn't mean as a commercial product. I meant just sharing with other people. There is a huge difference between being able to tinker with Python/R and being able to make a package usable by strangers.
• prionassembly 4y ago
  The onramp from - script without a main function - to personal or ad hoc codebase for non-tech workplace - to packaged code to cope with namespaces + type hints + general best practices - to code that reads like good code from the major open source project is long, but the slope is easy. There are no discontinuities. Basically anyone who can use Python to glue together networkx/sklearn etc. can eventually write software tools that are useful and stable enough to distribute.
• moochmooch 4y ago
  That should not be the litmus test for writing software. Lots of software can have 1 user, yourself. Stability and ability to distribute be damned