This is my greatest weakness, and it has a name: executive dysfunction. Well, that's the descriptive one.. The technically correct - and therefore useful - name

This is my greatest weakness, and it has a name: executive dysfunction. Well, that's the descriptive one.. The technically correct - and therefore useful - name is ADHD. Because I have lived so much of my life generally unable to "Just Start Somewhere", I've given the concept a lot of thought, and a lot of criticism. I can see my bias clearly today, but I'm still not convinced that my criticisms were ever wrong. -- What's the value in doing something? Is it the doing, or the something? If the value is in the doing, then there is no value in progress. That's obviously untrue. If the value is in the something, then where is the doing to make that something in the first place? Clearly, some doing is necessary, too. I find that the true value of "doing something" lies in the connection between the two. Their interdependence creates structure. By doing, we build something into something more. As a result of the expansion of something, we are better equipped for more doing. -- But what if something could do itself? To me, this is the ultimate dream of software: the limitless potential of a something that does. The more time I have spent obsessing over this system, the more I have seen the world of software go in the other direction. The problem lies in our goals. What is it that we desire to do? What is the something that will get us there? These are obvious questions with an obvious answer: application. An application is the kind of something that takes us directly to our desires. There's one problem with that system: every application must be constructed with the same process of doing. There is just enough of a platform for this to work, so everyone who is comfortable with "just doing the thing" can build an application, and be on their merry way. The platform itself was made with this very category of goal in mind. Our foundations are constrained to a single design pattern: applications. This was not always the case. -- Once upon a time, we had scripts. Technically, they are still here, but this platform is showing its age. Much like a human's ears, there are some features of the script platform that will never stop growing. New languages. New toolchains. New protocols. The more somethings we build onto script, the more unbalanced the overall platform gets. This is the problem that the application platform avoids. But how? There are a few valuable weaknesses that application provides: - Applications are weakly interconnected. If you don't need one, you can simply leave it behind. There is no need to cut it out, because it was never built in. - Applications are redundant. An application has all of its doing built-in. This allows its UI/UX to be coherent, because it is free to define the doing in its own terms. - Applications are independent. If an application depends on another application, that dependency is explicit, and can be easily managed. Dependencies can be swapped out with minimal work. As valuable as each of these are, a weakness is a weakness. They haven't stopped the world of software from reaching incredible goals; but they have been enough to stop me. -- Is this the end? Is application the final penultimate platform? I'm not convinced. I think we can do better. I think we have everything we need to create a new platform. This new platform can contain the strengths of both script and application. I have a mostly-coherent idea in mind: I call it the story empathizer. Now I just need to start building it...