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

The Timeless Way of Programming

tomasp.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: The Timeless Way of Programming

#41

Post by homonculus1 »

veltas wrote: post #29
jlg23 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can, but we prefer to use way cheaper and faster methods because before the "ancestral" building is finished, with our modern methods, we have built, used, torn down and rebuilt several times.

The Palace of Westminster rebuild took 30 years, but that was a pretty exceptional case. Balmoral Castle took 3 years. I don't know how long more modest housing took on those days but I'm assuming in the realm of a year. Even a few years to build a larger building seems acceptable if you get something reusable for much longer, and more timeless. Anyway, I think it's interesting to compare.

You'd think we ought to at least be able to build some monumental architecture some of the time, even if cost is prohibitive for ordinary buildings as the argument goes. It's simply impossible to my mind that we command more energy than our ancestors could dream of and yet it's somehow "too expensive" to ever achieve the kind of works they did by hand. There are obviously factors at play which have nothing to do with cost.

Re: The Timeless Way of Programming

#42

Post by zem »

jackblemming wrote: post #5

There’s a certain class of programmer who seems to derive great pleasure in comparing programming to architecture. Maybe because architects are cool, or sound more grand than “programmer”. The author mentions Patterns of Software as profound, but in my experience it was mostly empty and contained only references to other work, without adding its own voice or perspective. At worst, it was pretentious and boring.

> There’s a certain class of programmer who seems to derive great pleasure in comparing programming to architecture. Maybe because architects are cool, or sound more grand than “programmer”.

in my experience, when people say things like "Maybe because architects are cool, or sound more grand than “programmer”.", it's because not only do they not get the appeal of whatever it is, but they cannot even imagine anyone else doing it for any motive other than posturing.[1]

the true reason (at least from my perspective a someone who does enjoy the comparisons of programming to architecture) is that we already have a lot of intuition for architecture; there is something mentally satisfying about considering the way buildings are designed and constructed, and we have a more physical intuition for the forces and balance involved. software is a lot more abstract, so thinking of it in terms of physical architecture helps people gain some intuition for how all the parts fit together, or at the very least the illusion of intuition.

[1] an interesting analogy is gilbert and sullivan's "patience", where critics have pointed out that gilbert meant to write a parody of the aesthetic movement, but since he himself did not "get" the movement, all he could think of was that its members were conscious frauds, and therefore made that the thrust of the operetta.

Re: The Timeless Way of Programming

#43

Post by mxkopy »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #36
mxkopy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such a strange gripe to have. Architecture as a default comparison makes sense on many levels. You don't make blueprints for pottery. The level of 'coincidental' design is much lower in architecture than it is in painting. There are much more specified 'primitives' that you can use in architecture that directly reflect the capabilities of the construction, etc. And even before programming architecture was used metaph…

> And even before programming architecture was used metaphorically. 'Architecting a plan' and all that. The verbing of "architect" is relatively recent, and certainly comes after programming. Historically, and outside the USA, one generally designs a plan, you do not architect it. Architects design buildings, they do not architect them. Some kinds of software involve designing an architecture.

Not only are you nitpicking, you are also wrong.

https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/07/architectural-cri...

We should add that the use of “architect” as a verb isn’t a recent phenomenon. The Oxford English Dictionary has written examples going back to the early 1800s.

The earliest example in the OED is from a July 23, 1818, letter that the poet John Keats wrote to his brother Thomas after visiting Fingal’s Cave on the island of Staffa in the Inner Hebrides of Scotland.

Here’s how a poem in the letter describes the cave and its distinctive basalt columns: “This was architected thus / By the great Oceanus.”

Your view of language is incredibly prescriptive. If I want to, I can say architects architect buildings. There's nothing wrong with that. If there's a useful distinction between designing and architecting then there's 0 reason I shouldn't bring attention to it.

For example. If 'to architect' is synonymous with 'design', would you say someone architects a logo?

Re: The Timeless Way of Programming

#44

Post by veltas »

WalterBright wrote: post #39
btbuildem wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we stopped making buildings to create shelter, or livable places. The process became industrialized, and serves the same goal as most processes in a capitalist society: to generate most profit at minimum cost.

If things are built at maximum cost, there are far fewer things that can be built. Certainly not enough to house everyone.

They didn't say to build at maximum cost, at most alluded to not making everything in society about money.

Re: The Timeless Way of Programming

#45

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

mxkopy wrote: post #43
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And even before programming architecture was used metaphorically. 'Architecting a plan' and all that. The verbing of "architect" is relatively recent, and certainly comes after programming. Historically, and outside the USA, one generally designs a plan, you do not architect it. Architects design buildings, they do not architect them. Some kinds of software involve designing an architecture.

Not only are you nitpicking, you are also wrong. https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/07/architectural-cri... We should add that the use of “architect” as a verb isn’t a recent phenomenon. The Oxford English Dictionary has written examples going back to the early 1800s. The earliest example in the OED is from a July 23, 1818, letter that the poet John Keats wrote to his brother Thomas after visiting Fingal’s Cave…

You are welcome to say whatever you like, with whatever words you like.

Yes, this may have been common practice in the early 1800s, and earlier. It ceased to be common practice in the Anglophone world for most of the 20th century, and only re-emerged in the software development community in the final decade of that century.

The fact that a particular language habit existed at some point in time is often worth making to people who don't realize that language changes and shifts. But if you're going to do that, I think it wise to also acknowledge that the changes and shifts also involve particular language habits falling out of general use.

Re: The Timeless Way of Programming

#46

Post by mxkopy »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #45
mxkopy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only are you nitpicking, you are also wrong. https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/07/architectural-cri... We should add that the use of “architect” as a verb isn’t a recent phenomenon. The Oxford English Dictionary has written examples going back to the early 1800s. The earliest example in the OED is from a July 23, 1818, letter that the poet John Keats wrote to his brother Thomas after visiting Fingal’s Cave…

You are welcome to say whatever you like, with whatever words you like. Yes, this may have been common practice in the early 1800s, and earlier. It ceased to be common practice in the Anglophone world for most of the 20th century, and only re-emerged in the software development community in the final decade of that century. The fact that a particular language habit existed at some point in time is often worth making…

At the end of the day language is a carrier for meaning, that's all it is. Its history doesn't matter unless it confers meaning in some way (which it often does).

In my opinion saying 'architecting' is meaningfully different from 'designing'. If people don't generally do that, then their loss is the shade of meaning that that difference implies

Re: The Timeless Way of Programming

#47

Post by WalterBright »

veltas wrote: post #44
WalterBright wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If things are built at maximum cost, there are far fewer things that can be built. Certainly not enough to house everyone.

They didn't say to build at maximum cost, at most alluded to not making everything in society about money.

It's easy to say "it's not about the money" when it's someone else's money being spent.

Re: The Timeless Way of Programming

#48

Post by infinite8s »

jackblemming wrote: post #5

There’s a certain class of programmer who seems to derive great pleasure in comparing programming to architecture. Maybe because architects are cool, or sound more grand than “programmer”. The author mentions Patterns of Software as profound, but in my experience it was mostly empty and contained only references to other work, without adding its own voice or perspective. At worst, it was pretentious and boring.

At scale, architecture dominates materials. Meaning anyone can pretty much build a doghouse out of anything, but to build Notre Dame someone needed to have invented the arch, which can support a lot more weight than the sum of material used to construct it. The same applies to software. Kubernetes is more than the sum of it's parts.

Re: The Timeless Way of Programming

#49

Post by btbuildem »

WalterBright wrote: post #39
btbuildem wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we stopped making buildings to create shelter, or livable places. The process became industrialized, and serves the same goal as most processes in a capitalist society: to generate most profit at minimum cost.

If things are built at maximum cost, there are far fewer things that can be built. Certainly not enough to house everyone.

Even though today we build things with minimum cost, there's still not enough housing for everyone. There's a housing crisis in every major North American city, caused in large part by lack of affordable homes (and no, not everyone can work remotely from Quaint Townville, Wherever -- in fact, most can't).

It does not cost a million dollars to build a single detached house. Closer to a quarter million for materials and labour, give or take the cost of land. Profit for the seller is what makes up bulk of the cost. Profit margin for the builder. Decades of steady profit for the bank that sells and services the loan. The purpose of housing has become to be an investment vehicle, not shelter.

We could easily afford to build and maintain enough housing for everyone. Create and sustain vibrant communities where people's basic need of shelter are met. But it's just not compatible with the capitalist mindset.

Post reply on HN