4 ms·

> I suspect we'll see a continuous slow decrease in all aspects of quality of software as those who have a genuine love and passion for the field are replaced b

> I suspect we'll see a continuous slow decrease in all aspects of quality of software as those who have a genuine love and passion for the field are replaced by those in it just for the money. This seems narrow minded. In the early days of software development, the barrier for entry was incredibly high. The possibility of people making high quality, unique software is greater than it ever has been. It's also narrow minded to insist that only passion for engineering itself can produce high quality results. It's like claiming famously wealthy musicians can't and don't make remarkable, impactful music.

munificent 2y ago
> It's also narrow minded to insist that only passion for engineering itself can produce high quality results. It's like claiming famously wealthy musicians can't and don't make remarkable, impactful music. I think you're making a logical fallacy, or at least you seem to be implying that the set of "famously wealthy" people is disjoint with the set of people who are passionate. Sure, famously wealthy musicians can make great music. So can poor ones. But I haven't seen a lot of lazy, uninspired musicians make great music.
- redundantly 2y ago
  I never said anything about laziness, so I’m not sure why you’re adding that qualifier. I take it you believe that without pure love or enjoyment in something, a person could only be lazy. Inspiration doesn’t require passion for the art to come first, or even at all. Look at Gene Simmons. He co-founded one of the most successful, influential rock bands ever, driven by the goal of becoming rich and running a successful business, not by an unadulterated love for music.
  - munificent 2y ago
    I was looking for an antonym for "passionate". You're right that "lazy" doesn't quite capture it. > Look at Gene Simmons. He co-founded one of the most successful, influential rock bands ever, driven by the goal of becoming rich and running a successful business, not by an unadulterated love for music. This is a good example because while Kiss certainly has popularity, few of their songs are really loved for their musicality. Kiss' music is more about being a good time than good music per se. Sort of like how Garfield is an effective comic product but not actually really funny in the way that other comics are. In both of these cases, the creator is passionate about something and working hard at delivering it. They're passionate about providing a certain product experience, and less so about "art" (for however you want to define that). But imagine a version of Gene Simmons that didn't have the passion to master playing the bass and also didn't have the passion to grind every day at making Kiss a world-known rock band. That person isn't someone you'll ever hear of.
- knodi123 2y ago
  > But I haven't seen a lot of lazy, uninspired musicians make great music. that almost sounds like a joke setup. ;-)
nine_k 2y ago
> the barrier for entry was incredibly high Hmm, for some values of "incredibly". John Carmack, a juvenile delinquent, dropped out of university and went on career programming, soon upending the game industry. Linus Torvalds released Linux while being a university student, five years before obtaining a master's degree. Vitalik Buterin dropped out of university and created Etherium, funded by a grant from Thiel foundation. Whatever you may say about cryptocurrencies, Etherium is a nontrivial piece of software, showing remarkable longevity in the fast-moving field. None of them had a ton of formal qualifications. None of them had to obtain a license. They could just sit at a computer, write great software, and release it to the world, changing the world quite much. What they all have is a passion for (and resulting deep knowledge of) computers, mathematics, logic, plus independent thinking, and, well, not asking for permission. This is what a low barrier to entry plus universal availability of powerful tools (computers, compliers, etc), and books leads to. (High barriers bring very different results: look now many small aircraft still fly with engines designed in 1950s, burning leaded avgas. A worthy challenger still fails to step over the sky-high barrier.)
- redundantly 2y ago
  For Carmack and Torvalds, I’d argue the barrier to entry was still very high at that time. Both had the opportunity to attend university, which in itself gave them access to people and resources they otherwise wouldn’t have had. Additionally, they had access to personal computers when almost the entire world did not, along with the time and resources to focus on their interests. They were extremely fortunate to have that kind of privilege. As for Buterin, I have no idea who they are, so I can’t speak to them.

munificent 2y ago

> It's also narrow minded to insist that only passion for engineering itself can produce high quality results. It's like claiming famously wealthy musicians can't and don't make remarkable, impactful music. I think you're making a logical fallacy, or at least you seem to be implying that the set of "famously wealthy" people is disjoint with the set of people who are passionate. Sure, famously wealthy musicians can make great music. So can poor ones. But I haven't seen a lot of lazy, uninspired musicians make great music.

redundantly 2y ago
I never said anything about laziness, so I’m not sure why you’re adding that qualifier. I take it you believe that without pure love or enjoyment in something, a person could only be lazy. Inspiration doesn’t require passion for the art to come first, or even at all. Look at Gene Simmons. He co-founded one of the most successful, influential rock bands ever, driven by the goal of becoming rich and running a successful business, not by an unadulterated love for music.
- munificent 2y ago
  I was looking for an antonym for "passionate". You're right that "lazy" doesn't quite capture it. > Look at Gene Simmons. He co-founded one of the most successful, influential rock bands ever, driven by the goal of becoming rich and running a successful business, not by an unadulterated love for music. This is a good example because while Kiss certainly has popularity, few of their songs are really loved for their musicality. Kiss' music is more about being a good time than good music per se. Sort of like how Garfield is an effective comic product but not actually really funny in the way that other comics are. In both of these cases, the creator is passionate about something and working hard at delivering it. They're passionate about providing a certain product experience, and less so about "art" (for however you want to define that). But imagine a version of Gene Simmons that didn't have the passion to master playing the bass and also didn't have the passion to grind every day at making Kiss a world-known rock band. That person isn't someone you'll ever hear of.
knodi123 2y ago
> But I haven't seen a lot of lazy, uninspired musicians make great music. that almost sounds like a joke setup. ;-)

nine_k 2y ago

> the barrier for entry was incredibly high Hmm, for some values of "incredibly". John Carmack, a juvenile delinquent, dropped out of university and went on career programming, soon upending the game industry. Linus Torvalds released Linux while being a university student, five years before obtaining a master's degree. Vitalik Buterin dropped out of university and created Etherium, funded by a grant from Thiel foundation. Whatever you may say about cryptocurrencies, Etherium is a nontrivial piece of software, showing remarkable longevity in the fast-moving field. None of them had a ton of formal qualifications. None of them had to obtain a license. They could just sit at a computer, write great software, and release it to the world, changing the world quite much. What they all have is a passion for (and resulting deep knowledge of) computers, mathematics, logic, plus independent thinking, and, well, not asking for permission. This is what a low barrier to entry plus universal availability of powerful tools (computers, compliers, etc), and books leads to. (High barriers bring very different results: look now many small aircraft still fly with engines designed in 1950s, burning leaded avgas. A worthy challenger still fails to step over the sky-high barrier.)

redundantly 2y ago
For Carmack and Torvalds, I’d argue the barrier to entry was still very high at that time. Both had the opportunity to attend university, which in itself gave them access to people and resources they otherwise wouldn’t have had. Additionally, they had access to personal computers when almost the entire world did not, along with the time and resources to focus on their interests. They were extremely fortunate to have that kind of privilege. As for Buterin, I have no idea who they are, so I can’t speak to them.