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

Software Is Drowning the World

jamesabley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: Software Is Drowning the World

#61

Post by MaxBarraclough »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #59
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Things break down and things eventually need to be replaced. This has been a fact of life since time immemorial. That sounds a bit broad. In the general aviation world, engine designs from the 60's are still in widespread use.

As a GA pilot I find that a counter-argument: the fact that these engine designs from the 60's are still in widespread use is showing how far behind GA is. These engines work, but they are less performant and economic than car engines of 2020, while costing a lot more (smaller market, regulations, certifications). The old, heavy, underpowered and ubiquitous Cessna 172s are the best example of what is wrong in GA.

I should have better explained my point. Their fuel efficiency is atrocious, their power output is pitiful given the size and mass, and they require leaded fuel, as paulryanrogers mentioned. My point wasn't that they're ahead of their time. Engine technology has of course improved in the last 60 years. My point was that they've stuck around. Of course, there are examples of long-lived software, too.

Re: Software Is Drowning the World

#62

Post by andrewjl »

Micoloth wrote: post #37
stupidcar wrote: post #2

Things break down and things eventually need to be replaced. This has been a fact of life since time immemorial. I do tire of programmers acting as if the necessity of maintenance is some novel and unexpected problem, unique to software development, presented with hyperbolic titles like "software is drowning the world". Is physical infrastructure "drowning the world" because it needs to be maintained?

To be fair, I don't agree with this point of view at all. Things in the physical world break down beacuse they are made of matter, and the entire concept of "working" is a very simplified modeling of their behaviour that doesn't include second-order effects like tear,consumption of materials etc. Code, on the other hand, is a social constrution but entirely confined in an abstract and mathematical world. The _only_ r…

> is our inability as a community to once and for all define a solid foundation for the principles of computing

Is this possible? If code is a social construction as you say, then wouldn't it be impossible to arrive at this point unless society remains unchanging?

> Hence all the hacked together languages, tools and frameworks that people have piled on each other over the decades.

This hints at the what is IMO the real problem, software is hard to replace with confidence. Sure, it's easy to swap one version for another, but doing so with the full understanding of what will change...is basically impossible for any non-toy project today. And there are exceptions to this, but they're the "exception that proves the rule" type.

Re: Software Is Drowning the World

#63

Post by cxr »

72deluxe wrote: post #3
stupidcar wrote: post #2

Things break down and things eventually need to be replaced. This has been a fact of life since time immemorial. I do tire of programmers acting as if the necessity of maintenance is some novel and unexpected problem, unique to software development, presented with hyperbolic titles like "software is drowning the world". Is physical infrastructure "drowning the world" because it needs to be maintained?

The inability to fully understand how a system works due to the interconnecting pieces is not a problem unique to software either! That ship sailed a long time ago. E.g. with cars can the average person now repair it at home and maintain the entire car themselves? It would be foolish to recommend that we "fix" cars because of our inability to personally understand the entire thing from inception to finish, yet some f…

I don't know whether or not you've had the opportunity/personal experience of owning two cars concurrently for which you are the only party responsible for doing repairs and maintenance, and where one is much newer (say >10 years), putting you in a position to be able to compare and contrast the two.

Cars are not a good example to point to. The thing that would make cars a good example would be if cars were shown to exhibit a steady increase in essential complexity. In that case, yes, we might point to them and say, "Maybe the situation for software is the same, and we're mistaken to have any unreasonable expectations to the contrary?" But that doesn't match reality. Car manufacturers are as guilty as software developers of producing things that have gotten steadily complex without good engineering reasons to justify the complexification.

(Pre-emptive request: please do not respond to this comment as if I'm arguing that cars have not become safer or more fuel efficient.)

Re: Software Is Drowning the World

#64

Post by joe_biden123 »

Micoloth wrote: post #37
stupidcar wrote: post #2

Things break down and things eventually need to be replaced. This has been a fact of life since time immemorial. I do tire of programmers acting as if the necessity of maintenance is some novel and unexpected problem, unique to software development, presented with hyperbolic titles like "software is drowning the world". Is physical infrastructure "drowning the world" because it needs to be maintained?

To be fair, I don't agree with this point of view at all. Things in the physical world break down beacuse they are made of matter, and the entire concept of "working" is a very simplified modeling of their behaviour that doesn't include second-order effects like tear,consumption of materials etc. Code, on the other hand, is a social constrution but entirely confined in an abstract and mathematical world. The _only_ r…

I remember reading an article about coding at nasa, like the code that ran the moon landing ship.

I can't remember the link but you can probably find something. the way they code is very careful and deliberate. everyone has an office, none of this "rockstar" nonsense that you have at startups, they are all serious people, the deadlines are sensible, no one pulls all nighters, they come in at 9 and get out at 5. absolutely nothing gets written without documenting it. no line of gets changed without the reason for the change written in documentation. everything is carefully panned. needless to say the code got the ship to the moon and back. this is how coding should be done

Re: Software Is Drowning the World

#65

Post by 72deluxe »

cxr wrote: post #63
72deluxe wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inability to fully understand how a system works due to the interconnecting pieces is not a problem unique to software either! That ship sailed a long time ago. E.g. with cars can the average person now repair it at home and maintain the entire car themselves? It would be foolish to recommend that we "fix" cars because of our inability to personally understand the entire thing from inception to finish, yet some f…

I don't know whether or not you've had the opportunity/personal experience of owning two cars concurrently for which you are the only party responsible for doing repairs and maintenance, and where one is much newer (say >10 years), putting you in a position to be able to compare and contrast the two. Cars are not a good example to point to. The thing that would make cars a good example would be if cars were shown to…

Yes I have a 1972 VW Beetle, and a 2016 VW Beetle. I can safely say that the former is far simpler and also doesn't require a computer to diagnose or repair. It also doesn't have any firmwares that I can't update, eg. the bluetooth controller in the modern Bug, or the stereo. I can't enable the telephone button on my steering wheel without paying VW. I can't enable Android Auto without paying VW £200 here in the UK. (They couldn't even get it to work when I asked them to).

As for the mechanical components of the car - the modern Bug is a diesel (non-PD) so has a common rail fuel system. I can read fault codes with the OBD2 mechanism but not everything is accessible.

Both tremendous fun but the modern one is 100 times more complex and I would struggle to maintain it single-handedly. But I don't feel the need to reduce the modern car or "fix" the issue of its complexity simply because it is more complex.

My wife has a Mini that has developed a fault but who knows what sensor has failed according to the OBD2 codes?! I don't feel the need to "fix" that and reduce it to the old 1991 Mini Cooper I had (which had its own set of baffling problems, like in-line fuses for important things like the injector but a fuse box for non-essential things like the interior light..... but that's another story).

Post reply on HN