3 ms·
You're arguing from perfection. The reality is that most companies choose "fast+cheap" and usually incur significant technical debt which is paid off through t
by pnathan 13y ago
You're arguing from perfection.
The reality is that most companies choose "fast+cheap" and usually incur significant technical debt which is paid off through throwing bodies at the problem. It is usually considered better to hire 3 people who are mediocre than 1 person who is very skilled. This is extremely well addressed in the software engineering literature going back to the late 60s.
It's also the case that software engineering is very conservative: "Don't change ANYTHING" is the default state of the industry with regards to practices.
- Locke1689 13y agoI don't buy this either. If this were true you'd still see, for lack of a better term, the "redis" of Haskell. You can't argue that antirez skimped on development or that he isn't talented enough. Where is the redis of Haskell? The ffmpeg of ML? There's something else at play here.
- pnathan 13y agoI think the simple answer is that a lot of problems people consider useful are intellectually not terribly interesting. Among other things, if it's been done before, the cool factor drops off a good deal. e.g., I run a tutorial site for common lisp. One request has been for 'example of web framework'. At some point, I'll do it (it's useful), but my heart at the moment is in implementing an extensible indexing system for n-dimensional tuples. It's a good deal more esoteric and a lot more fun than screwing with http/html.