3 ms·

People should really watch Hickey’s talk — simple is not easy. Plenty (if not most) problems are complex (otherwise why would we bother with computers?), and co

by kaba0 3y ago

People should really watch Hickey’s talk — simple is not easy. Plenty (if not most) problems are complex (otherwise why would we bother with computers?), and complexity can’t be reduced just by “taking it apart”. The composition of two functions can have an entirely different complexity than what they have differently. Abstraction is the only way we can combat complexity (and as mentioned, most of that complexity is essential that can’t be reduced further), so if a given language sucks at it, it sucks.

api 3y ago
I agree that there is a lot of essential complexity in the problems we solve with computers, but I disagree that most complexity in software is essential. I think most complexity in software is incidental, existing to allow interoperability with other software or support legacy software and systems. If one could hypothetically rewrite the whole stack from the ground up with a 100% consistent set of APIs, interoperability standards, protocols, naming conventions, etc. and only one implementation of each core function, there would be an absolutely massive reduction in code size and complexity. Not that you could do this in the real world since the labor and cognitive load required would be astronomical, but consider it as a thought experiment. I have wondered if in the long term AI LLMs might be a way out. I wonder if a suitably powerful code-comprehending LLM (much better than current ones) could do what I just described. "Here is the source code to an entire Linux distribution with all its applications. Re-implement this entire code base in language X while preserving all functionality with a consistent style, minimal code reuse, maximum parsimony, and maximum performance. Omit all functions and abstractions not required to achieve the objective of each software package or interface..." (Three months and 10,000 GPUs later...)
DeathArrow 3y ago
>Abstraction is the only way we can combat complexity Abstraction just hides existing complexity and adds another layer of complexity. Using a FactoryFactoryFactory isn't going to eliminate complexity.

by kaba0 3y ago

api 3y ago

I agree that there is a lot of essential complexity in the problems we solve with computers, but I disagree that most complexity in software is essential. I think most complexity in software is incidental, existing to allow interoperability with other software or support legacy software and systems. If one could hypothetically rewrite the whole stack from the ground up with a 100% consistent set of APIs, interoperability standards, protocols, naming conventions, etc. and only one implementation of each core function, there would be an absolutely massive reduction in code size and complexity. Not that you could do this in the real world since the labor and cognitive load required would be astronomical, but consider it as a thought experiment. I have wondered if in the long term AI LLMs might be a way out. I wonder if a suitably powerful code-comprehending LLM (much better than current ones) could do what I just described. "Here is the source code to an entire Linux distribution with all its applications. Re-implement this entire code base in language X while preserving all functionality with a consistent style, minimal code reuse, maximum parsimony, and maximum performance. Omit all functions and abstractions not required to achieve the objective of each software package or interface..." (Three months and 10,000 GPUs later...)

DeathArrow 3y ago

>Abstraction is the only way we can combat complexity Abstraction just hides existing complexity and adds another layer of complexity. Using a FactoryFactoryFactory isn't going to eliminate complexity.