I hope nobody tries to license or regulate it. It would seriously hinder innovation to have only half the number of developers. I'd be out because you just know you'd have to be able to quicksort on a whiteboard or solve simultaneous equations or something.
Individual ethics are important. But some of the more important decisions are company level though. As a user, I am only minorly affected by code quality... because these days it's largely all pretty good.
What I am affected by is vendor lock in, weird SaaS cloud only stuff, and IoT devices that could be remote bricked at any time.
I also think piloting is the wrong metaphor. We absolutely should put the responsibility on the computers instead of ourselves as much as possible.
Our tools should make it very hard to write bugs. We should have AI and strong types and static analysis watching over us at all times.
And we should have reviews and beat practices and all that too.
If people keep making a mistake, we should teach our computers to catch it.
Programmers have already proven they can't be trusted. Just because you can write good code by "Being real smart and real careful" doesn't mean we can.
I'm also suspicious of personal joy. For programmers that often means reinventing wheels. Even if something is totally rock solid, a lot of coders wont really be satisfied by a day where all they did was string together some NPM libraries.
Programmers like to write suckless style stuff. They like experiments. They like hacks. They like rebuilding stuff from scratch.
They do not like using a 10k line library with real security audits for something they know they could do in ten lines if they sacrifice a few edge cases.
Programmers care way more about code than software. In fact it seems they kind of look down on the world for depending entirely on software. They seem to see the whole modern world as just a nightmare mess of spyware.
They're not going to feel as good about making great software as they would about making the absolute minimum possible amount of software.
But these are all just details, and the idea in general seems great.
Comments
I hope nobody tries to license or regulate it. It would seriously hinder innovation to have only half the number of developers. I'd be out because you just know you'd have to be able to quicksort on a whiteboard or solve simultaneous equations or something.
Individual ethics are important. But some of the more important decisions are company level though. As a user, I am only minorly affected by code quality... because these days it's largely all pretty good.
What I am affected by is vendor lock in, weird SaaS cloud only stuff, and IoT devices that could be remote bricked at any time.
I also think piloting is the wrong metaphor. We absolutely should put the responsibility on the computers instead of ourselves as much as possible.
Our tools should make it very hard to write bugs. We should have AI and strong types and static analysis watching over us at all times.
And we should have reviews and beat practices and all that too.
If people keep making a mistake, we should teach our computers to catch it.
Programmers have already proven they can't be trusted. Just because you can write good code by "Being real smart and real careful" doesn't mean we can.
I'm also suspicious of personal joy. For programmers that often means reinventing wheels. Even if something is totally rock solid, a lot of coders wont really be satisfied by a day where all they did was string together some NPM libraries.
Programmers like to write suckless style stuff. They like experiments. They like hacks. They like rebuilding stuff from scratch.
They do not like using a 10k line library with real security audits for something they know they could do in ten lines if they sacrifice a few edge cases.
Programmers care way more about code than software. In fact it seems they kind of look down on the world for depending entirely on software. They seem to see the whole modern world as just a nightmare mess of spyware.
They're not going to feel as good about making great software as they would about making the absolute minimum possible amount of software.
But these are all just details, and the idea in general seems great.