3 ms·
> we can, and inevitably will, write the last software at some point. Maybe, but the context/requirements change too. For one of your examples, what a web ser
by jrochkind1 4y ago
> we can, and inevitably will, write the last software at some point.
Maybe, but the context/requirements change too. For one of your examples, what a web server is desired to do changes with HTTP/2, and that may mean the "last" web server no longer is. But even less drastic/specific things can change desires and requirements; things change, even if hardware doesn't.
- pramodbiligiri 4y agoI think this is highly under appreciated. A particular piece of software exists in a technical, social and economic context. If any of these change, it opens up the space for a replacement or a new addition. Some big changes are desktop to web, web to mobile, single user to multi-user, power user to newbie… and so on.
- bullen 4y agoWell, if you believe HTTP/2.0 is an improvement then good luck to you. For me it's HTTP/1.1 until humans run out of electricity.
- jrochkind1 4y agoThat was just one example, but the fact that people disagree on it seems enough to be an example of why the a "last webserver ever" would stop being so. But it was just one example. There are things other than hardware changes that make people want something different out of software. Maybe not you, maybe you never change what you want out of software for any reason. if so you are extremely atypical. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- bullen 4y agoI don't chase eternal growth, I stop when I see something that is good enough: So OpenGL (ES) 3, HTTP/1.1, JSON, SMTP, DNS... But one thing that I have learned is hardware progression (C64 -> Amiga -> PC -> Raspberry 4) and that race is permanently over for humans for eternity. So we'll see what happens to software! Finally you can't just throw more energy at a problem, you actually need to write code with limitations in mind again!