> Is it arrogance to say that medicine is far better than it was in the past?
Irrelevant. Medicine and Software Development are not correlated, just because we want them to be. That's the point. Software Development results seem to have devolved (quality metrics such as binary size for equivalent reliability, functionality, and notably time to release), despite improvements in almost every aspect of development tooling.
Also interesting to note, these quality metrics follow along expected curves (accounting for development tooling) when DUPLICATING (sometimes with small improvements) working software. This tells us a great deal about what is a large problem with modern software.
People expect much more features with modern software as before, and accept worse reliability because of the faster bug fix cycle.
Sometimes even playing music doesn't work on my mobile phone, and I have to restart it. I never had that problem with my casette player 30 years ago. But that doesn't mean that I go back using a casette player instead of my phone for listening music.
Interesting that "avoids causing unnecessary costs" is not a quality metric to you. It's fun to see how it can suddenly become a really really important metric on platforms with size limitations, even if they do not care about "cost to users", which is the more common effect of binary size.
That cost is frequently swamped by development costs, runtime costs, support costs. Platforms with super restrictive size limitations are a small minority, these days you can plop a 5-10MB binary on your toaster.
To the vast majority of software developers and software projects out there, except for very constrained embedded environments.
Server back ends don't care about it, front ends don't care about it despite the lip service paid, games sure as hell don't, etc
A small minority of web devs seem to care, together with creators of already gigantic mobile apps and as I was saying, embedded devs working in very constrained environments.
The market, as a whole, maybe has this as their 100th priority. Which means it's not.
This is often the excuse we hear for why modern software is bad: "well, normal people don't care about that", a strawman argument that implies anyone who does care is abnormal and therefore worthless.
> anyone who does care is abnormal and therefore worthless.
No, they're not worthless, they're worth less :-)
Don't tell me, tell the business people financing everything we build. By and large, they don't care, it's reflected in incentives and it's reflected in what we build.
I don't think that's quite the point they're making. They're saying that small binary size doesn't always translate to user value. Technical excellence can be viewed as a goal in its own right, but it's not the same thing as user value.
Irrelevant. Medicine and Software Development are not correlated, just because we want them to be. That's the point. Software Development results seem to have devolved (quality metrics such as binary size for equivalent reliability, functionality, and notably time to release), despite improvements in almost every aspect of development tooling.
Also interesting to note, these quality metrics follow along expected curves (accounting for development tooling) when DUPLICATING (sometimes with small improvements) working software. This tells us a great deal about what is a large problem with modern software.