4 ms·

> The demand for software most certainly has an upper limit. No, it does not. There is no ceiling for complexity.

steveBK123 4mo ago
Exactly and this is true of many things. Much of the world is not zero sum, otherwise we'd have fallen into the "malthusian trap" several productivity booms ago.
red75prime 4mo ago
And when the required complexity of software to do the task gets high enough, you assign an agent to do the task instead.
rafaelmn 4mo ago
Entropy makes sure that you can't scale systems into infinite completely.
- Schiendelman 4mo ago
  We have thought that a few times with earlier technologies - a smaller chip requires less local reduction of entropy than a room sized computer. This may keep going for a long time yet.
lelanthran 4mo ago
>> The demand for software most certainly has an upper limit. > No, it does not. There is no ceiling for complexity. There's an upper limit on everything. Maybe there's no ceiling on incidental complexity for s/ware development, but there sure as shit a ceiling on the essential complexity.
- naveen99 4mo ago
  s/complexity/entropy No ceiling.
GeoAtreides 4mo ago
but, as the layoffs demonstrate, there is a ceiling for employed software engineers...
therealdrag0 4mo ago
Clearly there isn’t infinite money to spend on infinite complexity.
- vanuatu 4mo ago
  it is subject to market forces, but there's no clear ceiling you can draw like copywriting, or textiles, or horses and cars with abstractions and complexity there's essentially infinite demand for software
  - therealdrag0 4mo ago
    I don’t understand. What do you mean by complexity? Feature requests or something else.
    - vanuatu 4mo ago
      nearly any human desire can be set up as a complex software system to satiate it
dspillett 4mo ago
> There is no ceiling for complexity. There are perhaps limits to useful complexity. There are certainly limits to complexity people are willing to pay for. So if you are looking to make a living in development the fact that anyone will soon be able to do the basics and customise it for themselves is going to be a problem for you. Not directly, but because you'll be competing for fewer and fewer more interesting jobs that pay less and less over time (as development increasingly becomes a commodity task like waiting tables and stacking shelves), with the rest of us (maybe not me, I've already been unhappy in tech for years as remote work isn't good for my mental health, so I might bail early and beat the rush for those cushy table waiting jobs!).
- rfgplk 4mo ago
  You're assuming the current ensemble of commonly used software stacks is the most optimal there is. This assumption is simply wrong. Even looking at something simple like the office suite you can probably find countless areas where improvements can be made.
  - dspillett 4mo ago
    > You're assuming the current ensemble of commonly used software stacks is the most optimal there is. No, I'm assuming that the level of practical complexity has a much lower bound than people seem to be trying to service, and that while that bound will grow with time it doesn't grow at the rate the available “solutions” do.
star-glider 4mo ago
100% software doesn't take up space; there's always something more that can be automated or improved: https://loadhigh.jtylergriffin.com/devs-are-fine/ https://loadhigh.jtylergriffin.com/devs-are-fine/

Exactly and this is true of many things. Much of the world is not zero sum, otherwise we'd have fallen into the "malthusian trap" several productivity booms ago.

red75prime 4mo ago

And when the required complexity of software to do the task gets high enough, you assign an agent to do the task instead.

rafaelmn 4mo ago

Entropy makes sure that you can't scale systems into infinite completely.

Schiendelman 4mo ago
We have thought that a few times with earlier technologies - a smaller chip requires less local reduction of entropy than a room sized computer. This may keep going for a long time yet.

lelanthran 4mo ago

>> The demand for software most certainly has an upper limit. > No, it does not. There is no ceiling for complexity. There's an upper limit on everything. Maybe there's no ceiling on incidental complexity for s/ware development, but there sure as shit a ceiling on the essential complexity.

naveen99 4mo ago
s/complexity/entropy No ceiling.

GeoAtreides 4mo ago

but, as the layoffs demonstrate, there is a ceiling for employed software engineers...

therealdrag0 4mo ago

Clearly there isn’t infinite money to spend on infinite complexity.

vanuatu 4mo ago
it is subject to market forces, but there's no clear ceiling you can draw like copywriting, or textiles, or horses and cars with abstractions and complexity there's essentially infinite demand for software
- therealdrag0 4mo ago
  I don’t understand. What do you mean by complexity? Feature requests or something else.
  - vanuatu 4mo ago
    nearly any human desire can be set up as a complex software system to satiate it

dspillett 4mo ago

> There is no ceiling for complexity. There are perhaps limits to useful complexity. There are certainly limits to complexity people are willing to pay for. So if you are looking to make a living in development the fact that anyone will soon be able to do the basics and customise it for themselves is going to be a problem for you. Not directly, but because you'll be competing for fewer and fewer more interesting jobs that pay less and less over time (as development increasingly becomes a commodity task like waiting tables and stacking shelves), with the rest of us (maybe not me, I've already been unhappy in tech for years as remote work isn't good for my mental health, so I might bail early and beat the rush for those cushy table waiting jobs!).

rfgplk 4mo ago
You're assuming the current ensemble of commonly used software stacks is the most optimal there is. This assumption is simply wrong. Even looking at something simple like the office suite you can probably find countless areas where improvements can be made.
- dspillett 4mo ago
  > You're assuming the current ensemble of commonly used software stacks is the most optimal there is. No, I'm assuming that the level of practical complexity has a much lower bound than people seem to be trying to service, and that while that bound will grow with time it doesn't grow at the rate the available “solutions” do.

star-glider 4mo ago

100% software doesn't take up space; there's always something more that can be automated or improved: https://loadhigh.jtylergriffin.com/devs-are-fine/ https://loadhigh.jtylergriffin.com/devs-are-fine/