3 ms·
> Assembled software - using multiple libraries in place of crafting (almost) every piece of it - is the opposite of artisanal software. > The chances of this
by mustache_kimono 2y ago
> Assembled software - using multiple libraries in place of crafting (almost) every piece of it - is the opposite of artisanal software.
> The chances of this project failing are much higher using this customized approach than if I used the assembly-line method, but it doesn't matter to me - coding it this way is already so much more fun.
I am sympathetic to this way of thinking about "artisanal". I guess for me it has so much baggage re: food, I don't think of it this way. I'd perhaps call that/your way the "DIY way", because you're right -- it is sometimes appealing and advantageous, even if I'm not certain that's what the article intended.
- meiraleal 2y ago> even if I'm not certain that's what the article intended. I have the impression that was exactly the intention of the article: > In the coming years, we’ll see more and more people making software like someone building a table in their backyard or garage, they’ll enjoy the process and add their own personal touch. > If you love coding the way we do it now, keep at it! enjoy every moment, improve yourself, learn new things, keep coding!
- mustache_kimono 2y ago> > I don't think writing in x86_64 is any more artisanal than Python or JavaScript. > I have the impression that was exactly the intention of the article: Okay, but you seem to be ignoring the first half of the article. You know the part that tells us it is a great big joke: "Real Programmers wrote in machine code. Not FORTRAN. Not RATFOR. Not, even, assembly language. Machine Code. Raw, unadorned, inscrutable hexadecimal numbers. Directly."
- meiraleal 2y agoTrue, I think I really skipped that quote. I disagree with this part and think it doesn't link very well with the conclusion or with software artisans. Not sure if I mixed it up or the author :)