4 ms·
the article assumes monster codebases because we can build them. but cheaper code also means cheaper rewrites. maybe the future is disposable software, not care
by _slih 7mo ago
the article assumes monster codebases because we can build them. but cheaper code also means cheaper rewrites. maybe the future is disposable software, not carefully reviewed software.
- atomicnature 7mo agoIf you read the article carefully -- I've dealt with an alternative scenario as well -- where we may have smaller codebases with larger blast radius. As to disposable software, it's harder to get traction/adaption when things constantly break or are slow or the experience is crappy in general. To make it simpler - all else being equal - as a user would you prefer using highly reviewed/vetted/reliable software, or otherwise? My bet is reliability is an invariant -- nobody wishes for software that crashes, leaks your private info, gives faulty output, is laggy to use and so on.