4 ms·
The article moves away from its interesting proposition to just restate something bland about keeping scopes tight. We can't build software as fast as we can t
by thruflo 13y ago
The article moves away from its interesting proposition to just restate something bland about keeping scopes tight.
We can't build software as fast as we can think because we don't have the tools. What those tools should be is an interesting and important thought experiment.
- wvenable 13y agoUnless that tool is a time machine, how will any other tool help determine all the possible unknown issues a project might or might not have.
- avmich 13y agoSee http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.htm http://www.jsoftware.com/papers/tot.htm .
- gtani 13y agoThanks, will read later (me: former 15 hour/day APL programmer at Merrill Lynch)
- avmich 13y agoThen you probably know that already. The link is rather for those who seeks tools "to work with the speed of thought". Different languages claim achievement of different grades of "if you can state the problem in the language, you're done", but APL family does that with its own flavor of elegance.
- danmaz74 13y ago>We can't build software as fast as we can think because we don't have the tools Actually, the real "problem" is that, as soon as we have the tools to easily solve something that before was difficult, we move the target a step farther. But that's also why programming is so interesting, and programmers are in such high demand, so I wouldn't really call it a "problem".
- lttlrck 13y agoThe right tools move the goalposts. If this wasn't the case things would stagnate pretty fast.
- dools 13y agoI just made a comment further up the thread which is relevant to this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5810623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5810623 The original title of the article is the "bland" one, not the "interesting" one ;) However I do think that tools have the ability to solve the bland problem, too.