[lolinder]

> Innovation happens in fields where our ideas are limited by our means to pursue them. Software is no longer such a field, our brightest minds should be going elsewhere.

I feel like the author has an overly one-dimensional definition of both innovation and what it means for someone to be one of "our brightest minds".

There are two different goods and two different talents at play here. The first is taking an idea that already has been had and making it possible. The second is inventing new ideas. Both are goods, but each requires very different talents.

Biotechnology desperately needs people who, given a great idea, can break technological barriers and enable it. If we accept that software is bottlenecked by ideas, then software desperately needs people who can radically change paradigms. "Our greatest minds" consist of both types of people.

[the_only_law]

I've always imagine software is so successful as well, because of comparatively low capital costs needed to make something useful.