4 ms·

Everything in the physical world is the same. There are hundreds of pieces even in the smallest toaster, and no one in the world knows how to make half of one w

Everything in the physical world is the same. There are hundreds of pieces even in the smallest toaster, and no one in the world knows how to make half of one without all those external dependencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODzO7Lz_pw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ODzO7Lz_pw It's not a software thing, it's just how humanity works.

SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
Even if you consider something like "build a bridge", that classic comparison of software and traditional engineer, all the components of said bridge have been created by someone else with particular expertise. The civil engineer who designed where the iron beams will go played no part in the metallurgy of those beams.
hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
Milton Friedman put it best, in "I, Pencil". Everything around you is the result of hundreds to thousands of economic actors, loosely but robustly coordinated in a way to get you what you actually want at as low of a price as you can get away with. The complexity of the supply chain is the price of admission to the game. https://youtu.be/67tHtpac5ws?si=eZk_5K32gL4PxDgv https://youtu.be/67tHtpac5ws?si=eZk_5K32gL4PxDgv
nobodyandproud 1y ago
Yes and no. The physical world is bound by rules that are unchanging (more-or-less). Above this layer we’ve also devised and agreed upon standards that remain unchanging, though it’s regional: Voltage, screw/bolt sizes, tolerance levels, materials, material measurements, etc. At this layer, we’ve commoditized and standardized because it’s useful: It makes the components cost-effective and predictable. In software and computing, I can only think of the low-level networking standard that remain stable. And even that has to be reinvented somewhat for each OS or each nee language. Everything else seems to be reinvented or rewritten, and then versioned. Imagine having to upgrade your nuts and bolts in your car to v3.01 or lose support?
david927 1y ago
I'm not arguing against component-based architectures. I'm saying we're over-engineering, and it shows. Even toasters are less maintainable than they used to be. Ingredients in the cookies? Yes. 100? No.

SketchySeaBeast 1y ago

Even if you consider something like "build a bridge", that classic comparison of software and traditional engineer, all the components of said bridge have been created by someone else with particular expertise. The civil engineer who designed where the iron beams will go played no part in the metallurgy of those beams.

hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago

Milton Friedman put it best, in "I, Pencil". Everything around you is the result of hundreds to thousands of economic actors, loosely but robustly coordinated in a way to get you what you actually want at as low of a price as you can get away with. The complexity of the supply chain is the price of admission to the game. https://youtu.be/67tHtpac5ws?si=eZk_5K32gL4PxDgv https://youtu.be/67tHtpac5ws?si=eZk_5K32gL4PxDgv

nobodyandproud 1y ago

Yes and no. The physical world is bound by rules that are unchanging (more-or-less). Above this layer we’ve also devised and agreed upon standards that remain unchanging, though it’s regional: Voltage, screw/bolt sizes, tolerance levels, materials, material measurements, etc. At this layer, we’ve commoditized and standardized because it’s useful: It makes the components cost-effective and predictable. In software and computing, I can only think of the low-level networking standard that remain stable. And even that has to be reinvented somewhat for each OS or each nee language. Everything else seems to be reinvented or rewritten, and then versioned. Imagine having to upgrade your nuts and bolts in your car to v3.01 or lose support?

david927 1y ago

I'm not arguing against component-based architectures. I'm saying we're over-engineering, and it shows. Even toasters are less maintainable than they used to be. Ingredients in the cookies? Yes. 100? No.