9 ms·

> I'm more of a builder and if wager pg considers himself one, and I assume the majority of authentic HN users are builders. However I suspect the majority of p

> I'm more of a builder and if wager pg considers himself one, and I assume the majority of authentic HN users are builders. However I suspect the majority of people are maintainers. A dichotomy like "builder"/"maintainer" just doesn't make sense to me anymore. Let's take software as example: - Is someone that pushes their project from version 1.2.1 to 1.4.7 a "builder"? - Are Linux contributors "builders"? - Is someone porting CLI Y to rust a "builder"? - Is someone that wraps a GenAI LLM into a web app a "builder"? - Is someone in offensive security a "builder" of something? ...or let's ask it differently: - Is performance optimization "maintenance"? - Is the fix that prevents a user of your software from accomplishing their task "maintenance"? - Is the work on a solid infrastructure, one that brings your time to resolution (TTR) closer to zero, the work of a "maintainer"? - Is a dependency upgrade in your project the work of a "maintainer"? Everybody builds and maintains all the time, and every artifact once built is in need of maintenance. Technological advancements will always be a collective effort through some form of feedback. Whether you're (re-)building something frequently [0] or advancing through maintenance [1], both are just categories of equal practice. [0]: https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/how-japan-makes-houses/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/how-japan-makes-houses... [1]: https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-maintenance-race/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-maintenance-race/

FloorEgg 2y ago
I agree that there are roles with lots of maintenance and building in them, and you shared a lot of good examples. I also know of roles where a person does almost entirely maintenance type work or entirely building type work. To me the distinction is whether you are restoring functionality that previously worked and then stopped, or are you creating new functionality. I would also extend the notion of functionality to include what people perceive as value. So new art that makes someone feel something would be creation. A therapist that helps someone restore their emotional wellbeing is maintenance. My subjective anecdotal observations are that some people seem more wired for maintenance and some more wired for building and like with any attribute some are wired for both or neither. They are independent attributes that are not mutually exclusive. So I disagree that there is no distinction, but I agree they are not mutually exclusive. All this is kind of beside my original point though, which is that it seems like PG left maintenance out of his proposed value system.
- whilenot-dev 2y ago
  > you are restoring functionality that previously worked and then stopped, or are you creating new functionality Good maintenance prevents something from stopping to work in the first place. I'd frame maintenance as someone's care and effort to put up with something (Bernard Moitessier and "built to be low-maintenance" from my linked article [1] comes to mind), so I'm in strong disagreement with your distinction as stated. Maintenance, unlike building, is a task that will inevitably occur, but it's the question if you want to put up with it and how you're doing it. Building while ignoring maintenance is just complete negligence, and if you want to allow yourself and others to be negligent, I repaired quite a bit already to understand that fixing stuff can require quite a lot of unforeseen (re-)building. I honestly think this mindset was appropriate 10-30 years ago, but doesn't sit well in our current climate anymore, whether politically, economically nor otherwise. > I would also extend the notion of functionality to include what people perceive as value. So new art that makes someone feel something would be creation. I wanted to avoid bringing art into this discussion because art exists purely by maintaining a dialog about it. Artifacts need to be created first, sure, but as soon as they're published they'll just become excerpts to advance in that dialog (hopefully), and there's still the artist/viewer dichotomy in the perception of value and its affiliation of feelings. Making those pieces parts of art history requires maintenance, and that's the same collective effort as with technology. > it seems like PG left maintenance out of his proposed value system. Seems like we're spot on.
FloorEgg 2y ago
With more time to think about this, and after rereading your comment I'm providing a new answer. Every example you listed I would consider building. You only listed examples that relate to creating software. I'm sure the PG essay didn't mean to restrict all possibilities of what people could do to just creating software. On one end the distinction is clear to me. A security guard maintains the security of a facility. A nurse maintains the health and well being of patients. A janitor maintains the cleanliness of a facility. Once you start bringing repairs into the scope of maintenance I can understand the distinction being blurry. I'd draw the line where a repair restores functionality to a previous state without any material improvments (to functionality or longevity). If there is a material improvments to the previously optimal state it's augmentation and therefore building.

FloorEgg 2y ago

I agree that there are roles with lots of maintenance and building in them, and you shared a lot of good examples. I also know of roles where a person does almost entirely maintenance type work or entirely building type work. To me the distinction is whether you are restoring functionality that previously worked and then stopped, or are you creating new functionality. I would also extend the notion of functionality to include what people perceive as value. So new art that makes someone feel something would be creation. A therapist that helps someone restore their emotional wellbeing is maintenance. My subjective anecdotal observations are that some people seem more wired for maintenance and some more wired for building and like with any attribute some are wired for both or neither. They are independent attributes that are not mutually exclusive. So I disagree that there is no distinction, but I agree they are not mutually exclusive. All this is kind of beside my original point though, which is that it seems like PG left maintenance out of his proposed value system.

whilenot-dev 2y ago
> you are restoring functionality that previously worked and then stopped, or are you creating new functionality Good maintenance prevents something from stopping to work in the first place. I'd frame maintenance as someone's care and effort to put up with something (Bernard Moitessier and "built to be low-maintenance" from my linked article [1] comes to mind), so I'm in strong disagreement with your distinction as stated. Maintenance, unlike building, is a task that will inevitably occur, but it's the question if you want to put up with it and how you're doing it. Building while ignoring maintenance is just complete negligence, and if you want to allow yourself and others to be negligent, I repaired quite a bit already to understand that fixing stuff can require quite a lot of unforeseen (re-)building. I honestly think this mindset was appropriate 10-30 years ago, but doesn't sit well in our current climate anymore, whether politically, economically nor otherwise. > I would also extend the notion of functionality to include what people perceive as value. So new art that makes someone feel something would be creation. I wanted to avoid bringing art into this discussion because art exists purely by maintaining a dialog about it. Artifacts need to be created first, sure, but as soon as they're published they'll just become excerpts to advance in that dialog (hopefully), and there's still the artist/viewer dichotomy in the perception of value and its affiliation of feelings. Making those pieces parts of art history requires maintenance, and that's the same collective effort as with technology. > it seems like PG left maintenance out of his proposed value system. Seems like we're spot on.

FloorEgg 2y ago

With more time to think about this, and after rereading your comment I'm providing a new answer. Every example you listed I would consider building. You only listed examples that relate to creating software. I'm sure the PG essay didn't mean to restrict all possibilities of what people could do to just creating software. On one end the distinction is clear to me. A security guard maintains the security of a facility. A nurse maintains the health and well being of patients. A janitor maintains the cleanliness of a facility. Once you start bringing repairs into the scope of maintenance I can understand the distinction being blurry. I'd draw the line where a repair restores functionality to a previous state without any material improvments (to functionality or longevity). If there is a material improvments to the previously optimal state it's augmentation and therefore building.