4 ms·

Software projects need a "Director" - much like a Film Director. This person has ultimate control over what the software should be. I'm always surprised to fi

Software projects need a "Director" - much like a Film Director. This person has ultimate control over what the software should be. I'm always surprised to find software that is a really cohesive and appears to be the implementation of a clean and consistent vision, because software projects have so many people pulling it in so many directions. This is, IMO, why MacOS is such a simple and clean and consistent implementation and Windows is just spaghetti soup. I don't know the truth of how these projects are run but I imagine at Apple there is someone at the top with a really clear vision of what MacOS should be.

chrisjharris 3y ago
I'm sure that somebody has thought this through more fully than myself, but the impression I have is that for software, the benevolent dictator model works best. Python and Javascript occupy adjacent places in the programming language firmament, but the Python language (with van Rossum having fairly tight control over it), although bloating somewhat over time, has still ended up quite a lot more elegant than Javascript.
- UncleEntity 3y ago
  Ironically, Guido got dethroned precisely because python became too popular and “you can’t please all of the people all of the time” so he just walked away. Now they have committee meetings to decide if an idea is good enough to form a committee to discuss if a committee should be formed to discuss the idea — though, probably not exactly like that…
- scrollaway 3y ago
  Modern python is not more elegant than modern JS, I disagree (I’ve been coding in both for over 15 years). Python has a good degree of elegance to it, and it does have less warts due to its less stringent backwards compatibility requirements. But JS is very elegant, and better at it than python thanks to python’s shitty lambdas vs js anonymous functions.
  - yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
    There’s nothing elegant about continuously accreting features. If JavaScript were limited to The Good Parts I could say it’s elegant. As it stands I’d describe it as more akin to Frankenstein’s monster but riddled with tumors.
    - scrollaway 3y ago
      This was not the question being answered.
      - yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
        There was no question to be answered. You responded to an opinion which compared the relative elegance of two scripting languages with your own opinion. I also provided an opinion.
  - marginalia_nu 3y ago
    Maybe a silly question, but if js is such a complete language, why are there so many js frameworks being developed all the time, all seemingly with the goal of making it easier to do fairly basic tasks with js?
    - scrollaway 3y ago
      Elegance and completeness are two different things. But to answer your question anyway, I would say a framework's goals are more specific than the language's. For example, Python serves both the data science community and the embedded community. The two have wildly different goals, and thus, different frameworks to achieve "fairly basic tasks [for their domain]". JS serves so many different communities/domains, which is why there are so many frameworks. Larger audience, with even more different needs. The fact it can serve so many different audiences is a testament to its elegance.
lastangryman 3y ago
Completely agree. This is why on whole large companies fail to innovate. Too much design by committee, too scared to trust someone with a vision.
Applejinx 3y ago
Apple came up with Swift. Apple's pulled off multiple changes in processor architecture (68k/PPC/Intel/Apple Silicon). They are pretty much the poster child for 'my way or the highway', for vision that shows no interest in compromising with the weight of accumulated expectation. They're consistently willing to throw everything away and make up a new thing and force everybody to do that (and re-buy all their stuff). I don't know the specifics of how, organizationally, they do it. They're a proof that this way of doing things can be successful, and profitable.
- duxup 3y ago
  > and re-buy all their stuff I’ve found my Apple products have a far longer longevity than similar products. I’ve never found like I need to re-buy something because of a product change…
  - iSnow 3y ago
    You aren't totally wrong, but the dozens of different dongles I bought over the decades using Apple gear are a nuisance. The amount of display adapters alone...

chrisjharris 3y ago

I'm sure that somebody has thought this through more fully than myself, but the impression I have is that for software, the benevolent dictator model works best. Python and Javascript occupy adjacent places in the programming language firmament, but the Python language (with van Rossum having fairly tight control over it), although bloating somewhat over time, has still ended up quite a lot more elegant than Javascript.

UncleEntity 3y ago
Ironically, Guido got dethroned precisely because python became too popular and “you can’t please all of the people all of the time” so he just walked away. Now they have committee meetings to decide if an idea is good enough to form a committee to discuss if a committee should be formed to discuss the idea — though, probably not exactly like that…
scrollaway 3y ago
Modern python is not more elegant than modern JS, I disagree (I’ve been coding in both for over 15 years). Python has a good degree of elegance to it, and it does have less warts due to its less stringent backwards compatibility requirements. But JS is very elegant, and better at it than python thanks to python’s shitty lambdas vs js anonymous functions.
- yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
  There’s nothing elegant about continuously accreting features. If JavaScript were limited to The Good Parts I could say it’s elegant. As it stands I’d describe it as more akin to Frankenstein’s monster but riddled with tumors.
  - scrollaway 3y ago
    This was not the question being answered.
    - yakshaving_jgt 3y ago
      There was no question to be answered. You responded to an opinion which compared the relative elegance of two scripting languages with your own opinion. I also provided an opinion.
- marginalia_nu 3y ago
  Maybe a silly question, but if js is such a complete language, why are there so many js frameworks being developed all the time, all seemingly with the goal of making it easier to do fairly basic tasks with js?
  - scrollaway 3y ago
    Elegance and completeness are two different things. But to answer your question anyway, I would say a framework's goals are more specific than the language's. For example, Python serves both the data science community and the embedded community. The two have wildly different goals, and thus, different frameworks to achieve "fairly basic tasks [for their domain]". JS serves so many different communities/domains, which is why there are so many frameworks. Larger audience, with even more different needs. The fact it can serve so many different audiences is a testament to its elegance.

lastangryman 3y ago

Completely agree. This is why on whole large companies fail to innovate. Too much design by committee, too scared to trust someone with a vision.

Applejinx 3y ago

Apple came up with Swift. Apple's pulled off multiple changes in processor architecture (68k/PPC/Intel/Apple Silicon). They are pretty much the poster child for 'my way or the highway', for vision that shows no interest in compromising with the weight of accumulated expectation. They're consistently willing to throw everything away and make up a new thing and force everybody to do that (and re-buy all their stuff). I don't know the specifics of how, organizationally, they do it. They're a proof that this way of doing things can be successful, and profitable.

duxup 3y ago
> and re-buy all their stuff I’ve found my Apple products have a far longer longevity than similar products. I’ve never found like I need to re-buy something because of a product change…
- iSnow 3y ago
  You aren't totally wrong, but the dozens of different dongles I bought over the decades using Apple gear are a nuisance. The amount of display adapters alone...