4 ms·
> t is the way I think. I am a very bottom-up thinker. If you give me the right kind of Tinker Toys, I can imagine the building. I can sit there and see primiti
by jimbokun 3y ago
> t is the way I think. I am a very bottom-up thinker. If you give me the right kind of Tinker Toys, I can imagine the building. I can sit there and see primitives and recognize their power to build structures a half mile high, if only I had just one more to make it functionally complete. I can see those kinds of things.
I’m no Ken Thompson, but this resonates with me. I like to find the simplest, most powerful and general solution, then apply it to the problem at hand.
Super complex frameworks and systems are the bane of my existence, because I really can’t wrap my head around what they are doing, so I can’t trust them.
- l33t7332273 3y agoIt’s generally the case that complex frameworks are “the simplest, most powerful and general solution,” since it is usually the case that achieving a powerful and general solution requires a great deal of irreducible complexity. In fact I think what Ken is talking about here is using those simple tools to generate effective purpose built solutions rather than general multi-tools.
- AnimalMuppet 3y agoDisagree. It is rare that "the most general" and "the simplest" are the same thing. I mean, it's magical when they're the same. It's just that you don't see that very often.
- l33t7332273 3y agoI must not have phrased what I meant well. I agree with you completely.
- pilgrim0 3y agoI feel exactly the same. The history of computing is full of really simple alternative models that didn’t make it into mainstream. So, the easiest way to imagine what future tech could look like is by looking at the past. The state we are in, I cannot imagine how one could come up with something truly elegant on top of foundations plagued with irreducible complexity.
- BigParm 3y ago[dead]