|
|
|
|
|
by nprescott
3628 days ago
|
|
I think I would disagree. I don't know that I had the same read on the article as you, but it didn't seem Moore was advocating simplicity for simplicity's sake, but as a means to and end (where the end is robust, maintainable software). >> If it were a lot simpler I would have a lot more confidence that the technology would endure into the indefinite future. I think he is (correctly) speaking to the byzantine systems which have been propped up (successfully!) to engineer the kinds of applications we are accustomed to (terminal emulators spanning hundreds of thousands of lines of code, web browsers spanning tens of millions etc.). It seems (from what I've read from and about Moore) his idea of empowering people is simplifying the surface area of a problem, rather than simplifying an interface to the problem (for lack of a better phrase). People can't really use the solutions he presents or advocates to solve the kinds of problems they face with computers as they are being used but the argument might be made that they're solving the wrong problem. I think that we'll eventually come around to some diluted, almost unrecognizable conclusion along these lines - see the number of people advocating a "burn it all down and start over" approach after just half a century of computing. See also the amount of work spent on maintaining compatibility with relatively ancient systems in spite of these arguments. |
|
I dream of a future where my bank (for example) publishes API documentation which can be used to successfully implement a working first-class client. That client can then be an actually-good piece of software.
The web is an awful platform for applications, and the only reason for its success in this space was ubiquitous and consistent deployment.