Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Software Is Hard (2007)

gamearchitect.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 54 posts

Re: Software Is Hard (2007)

#3

Post by euske »

How timely. I was reading the Unicode Standard the other day, and realized how this seemingly simple project of "modelling a character with a number" has become a huge, sprawling behemoth over years because they tried to cover every aspect of human language; I'm sure it's going to be even more convoluted and politicized in future, and it will never be complete.

And this brings me two sides of the argument: should software capture every aspect of human life with all of its complications, or humans should change their lifestyle to fit a software framework? This is probably a never ending discussion, and I'm keen to listen to both sides.

Re: Software Is Hard (2007)

#4

Post by jrochkind1 »

euske wrote: post #3

How timely. I was reading the Unicode Standard the other day, and realized how this seemingly simple project of "modelling a character with a number" has become a huge, sprawling behemoth over years because they tried to cover every aspect of human language; I'm sure it's going to be even more convoluted and politicized in future, and it will never be complete. And this brings me two sides of the argument: should sof…

Wait, are there really people who think humans should change their lives to fit a software framework?

Re: Software Is Hard (2007)

#5

Post by hamandcheese »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #4
euske wrote: post #3

How timely. I was reading the Unicode Standard the other day, and realized how this seemingly simple project of "modelling a character with a number" has become a huge, sprawling behemoth over years because they tried to cover every aspect of human language; I'm sure it's going to be even more convoluted and politicized in future, and it will never be complete. And this brings me two sides of the argument: should sof…

Wait, are there really people who think humans should change their lives to fit a software framework?

Well, we altered our natural circadian rhythms to fit time zones and daylight savings time, so it doesn't seem that far fetched to me.

Re: Software Is Hard (2007)

#6

Post by purrpit »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #4
euske wrote: post #3

How timely. I was reading the Unicode Standard the other day, and realized how this seemingly simple project of "modelling a character with a number" has become a huge, sprawling behemoth over years because they tried to cover every aspect of human language; I'm sure it's going to be even more convoluted and politicized in future, and it will never be complete. And this brings me two sides of the argument: should sof…

Wait, are there really people who think humans should change their lives to fit a software framework?

It happens anyway. Humans are more flexible and adjusting than software I guess. For example: where I am from, people use Hindi language to communicate but write Hindi using Latin alphabets rather than native Hindi alphabets, especially when typing on mobile phones. This is a result of Hindi letters being inherently complex in writing and lack of proper software ecosystem available (keyboard autocomplete, swiping etc)

Re: Software Is Hard (2007)

#7

Post by typon »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #4
euske wrote: post #3

How timely. I was reading the Unicode Standard the other day, and realized how this seemingly simple project of "modelling a character with a number" has become a huge, sprawling behemoth over years because they tried to cover every aspect of human language; I'm sure it's going to be even more convoluted and politicized in future, and it will never be complete. And this brings me two sides of the argument: should sof…

Wait, are there really people who think humans should change their lives to fit a software framework?

Billions of people who don't speak English use websites in English because they have no choice.

Re: Software Is Hard (2007)

#8

Post by jlawson »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #4
euske wrote: post #3

How timely. I was reading the Unicode Standard the other day, and realized how this seemingly simple project of "modelling a character with a number" has become a huge, sprawling behemoth over years because they tried to cover every aspect of human language; I'm sure it's going to be even more convoluted and politicized in future, and it will never be complete. And this brings me two sides of the argument: should sof…

Wait, are there really people who think humans should change their lives to fit a software framework?

Culture has always adapted around technology and products available.

Think about food. Pretty much every world cuisine is rooted in a bunch of non-optional requirements imposed by local climate, soil, etc.

Even language has shifted to adapt to writing systems over time.

Re: Software Is Hard (2007)

#9

Post by egypturnash »

> once Epic's written Unreal, they never have to create a first-person shooter engine again. Instead, they just need to keep adding new features. Day 1 may need to write a first-person shooter engine, but only because we've never done that before. This is why programmers always want to rewrite everything. Most shipping software is the equivalent of a novelist's first draft.

...and Unreal had been licensing their first person shooter engine since 1996, though it wouldn’t be until two years after this post that they dropped the price on UE3 to the point where hobbyists could afford it, then made UE4 damn near free, to try and grab some of the indy game love that Unity has been getting since its first much-lower-price release in 2005. And don’t forget Id, who’d been licensing their engines since, what, the Doom days?

Big games are still obscene sprawling messes, and so are little games I’m sure, but we are kinda at a point where nobody ever needs to write a FPS engine ever again, unless they specifically think that sounds like a fun project. Or any other kind of basic game format, it’s not like the four people who made Untitled Goose Game had to do much for the initial steps of getting a goose wandering around a 3d modeled world full of objects with a decent caricature of basic physics.

Post reply on HN