3 ms·

> 50 years ago, somebody might say “programming is only a way to automate simple repetitive tasks” and that would be obviously wrong. That is actually extremel

> 50 years ago, somebody might say “programming is only a way to automate simple repetitive tasks” and that would be obviously wrong. That is actually extremely correct. The only purpose for software is automation, which is the elimination of labor. Getting that wrong directly influences your quality of product more than any other downstream factor.

low_tech_love 2y ago
It might be theoretically correct in the same way that it is correct to say that “a building is just a bunch of bricks on top of each other”. But there are thousands of different buildings with different reasons to exist which offer drastically different services and serve different purposes. A video game like Elden Ring is built from the same “automation” pieces as the LS command in my terminal, but it would very disingenuous to say they’re basically the same thing.
- austin-cheney 2y ago
  That is an incorrect comparison. A building, all buildings, are dwellings, but they are no more or less the sum of their parts than anything else. It’s not about the construction materials. It’s about the utility.
  - teleforce 2y ago
    Not OP but I think it is correct comparison. Dijkstra's quote succinctly summarized the arguments: "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
    - CoastalCoder 2y ago
      With all due respect to Dijkstra, whether or not something is interesting is subjective. I wonder if his point was that the question didn't need to be answered for whatever they were discussing at the time?
      - dTal 2y ago
        His point is that question ultimately boils down to a semantic argument over the word "think/swim", which may be interesting to a linguist but is not philosophically meaty in the way the question implies.
  - low_tech_love 2y ago
    > It’s not about the construction materials. It’s about the utility. I think I missed your point. Wasn’t that exactly what I said?
herval 2y ago
> The only purpose for software is automation, which is the elimination of labor. Getting that wrong directly influences your quality of product more than any other downstream factor. I take it you never played a game in your life?
- hinkley 2y ago
  Devil’s advocate: Fighting games are just better versions of Rockem Sockem Robots. And 4X games could be fancier versions of Settlers of Catan.
  - herval 2y ago
    What “labor” does a “fancier version of Catan” eliminate?
- austin-cheney 2y ago
  Do you mean baseball, football, tag, board games, cross words, Sudoku, Dungeons and Dragons, or something else? There are many games that are not electronic. So, what separates those athletic and paper games from electronic games? Automation.
  - herval 2y ago
    No, I obviously don’t mean those, buddy
- outofpaper 2y ago
  Video games automate whole chunks of play, be that imagination with graphics and sound effects, other players with virtual enemies and allies, let alone all the automation that goes into multi-player games.

low_tech_love 2y ago

It might be theoretically correct in the same way that it is correct to say that “a building is just a bunch of bricks on top of each other”. But there are thousands of different buildings with different reasons to exist which offer drastically different services and serve different purposes. A video game like Elden Ring is built from the same “automation” pieces as the LS command in my terminal, but it would very disingenuous to say they’re basically the same thing.

austin-cheney 2y ago
That is an incorrect comparison. A building, all buildings, are dwellings, but they are no more or less the sum of their parts than anything else. It’s not about the construction materials. It’s about the utility.
- teleforce 2y ago
  Not OP but I think it is correct comparison. Dijkstra's quote succinctly summarized the arguments: "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim."
  - CoastalCoder 2y ago
    With all due respect to Dijkstra, whether or not something is interesting is subjective. I wonder if his point was that the question didn't need to be answered for whatever they were discussing at the time?
    - dTal 2y ago
      His point is that question ultimately boils down to a semantic argument over the word "think/swim", which may be interesting to a linguist but is not philosophically meaty in the way the question implies.
- low_tech_love 2y ago
  > It’s not about the construction materials. It’s about the utility. I think I missed your point. Wasn’t that exactly what I said?

herval 2y ago

> The only purpose for software is automation, which is the elimination of labor. Getting that wrong directly influences your quality of product more than any other downstream factor. I take it you never played a game in your life?

hinkley 2y ago
Devil’s advocate: Fighting games are just better versions of Rockem Sockem Robots. And 4X games could be fancier versions of Settlers of Catan.
- herval 2y ago
  What “labor” does a “fancier version of Catan” eliminate?
austin-cheney 2y ago
Do you mean baseball, football, tag, board games, cross words, Sudoku, Dungeons and Dragons, or something else? There are many games that are not electronic. So, what separates those athletic and paper games from electronic games? Automation.
- herval 2y ago
  No, I obviously don’t mean those, buddy
outofpaper 2y ago
Video games automate whole chunks of play, be that imagination with graphics and sound effects, other players with virtual enemies and allies, let alone all the automation that goes into multi-player games.