[the-printer]

So much can be commented on in response to points or perspectives that aren’t included in a person’s position. The amount of remarks on the unspoken tend to increase in relation to the responder’s nitpickiness over the author’s choice of words.

One of the strangest things is when people over-interpret modest remarks as declarations of war against the fabric of sensibility and human decency. This seems to be a trend nowadays.

I don’t think that the author of this article/talk meant to discourage people away from all software contrary to the types he discussed here and it doesn’t sound like that. It reads like a modest appeal.

[akkartik]

Thank you. Words commenters aren't focusing on:

* Prefer

* "Gravitating away"

* "even one of these suggestions"

* "better than nothing"

* "This isn't always possible. Sometimes we have to use software with millions of users. But I think it helps to rely on small-scale tools as much as possible, and to question tools for large crowds of people at every opportunity."

(I'm the author.)

[jasode]

>But I think it helps to rely on small-scale tools as much as possible,

The problem is that your presentation is not covering the various downsides of choosing "small-scale" software. There are tradeoffs and if you don't explicitly highlight them, it's a disservice to readers.

E.g. You mention that large-scale software for millions is "expensive". But small-scale software is also expensive in different ways. (Software used by only a few can be more expensive in time/labor/hassles because of lack of features, workarounds required, lack of tutorials, etc)

I've written several utilities in the "small-scale" software category for my friends to use and that experience has enlightened me that most people (who are not hackers & techies) should use "software for millions" as the default choice.

If you're one of those that chooses small-scale software (e.g. your old Lua v5.1 anecdote), I think you're already part of a self-selected group and you don't need blogs suggesting it to you. You also are willing to overlook the downsides.

I like most of Clay Shirky's writings on various topics but his particular essay on "Situated Software" which you cited is incomplete and misleading because it doesn't cover "software rot": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_rot

[akkartik]

It's quite possible I'm too far captured by my own belief system, because it seems not a contest. Perhaps someone else needs to write the rebuttal, and defend mainstream software with constant bugs, vulnerabilities that stay unpatched for months, and unaccountable "feature" additions.

I'm not saying we should use situated software everywhere. I'm saying we should _try to_ use situated software everywhere. I think of this as evolutionary adaptation advice. Akin to, "you're evolved to climb trees, avoid plains." My hope is to stimulate demand for situated software, with cascading improvements in availability and convenience.

Situated software has costs of convenience. To that I say, "suck it up." It's good for you. With the full knowledge that most people will ignore me.

It's important to weight the costs on both sides by the impact when costs occur. That's a big part of why I think it's not a contest. One 0-day pays for thousands of problems on the other side.