[skybrian]

People don't realize how much software engineering has improved. I remember when most teams didn't use version control, and if we did have it, it was crappy. Go through the Joel Test [1] and think about what it was like at companies where the answers to most of those questions was "no."

[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/09/the-joel-test-12-s...

[Towaway69]

At the same time, systems have become far more complex. Back when version control was crap, there weren't a thousand APIs to integrate and a million software package dependencies to manage.

Sure everything seems to have gotten better and that's why we now need AIs to understand our code bases - that we created with our great version control tooling.

Fundamentally we're still monkeys at keyboards just that now there are infinitely many digital monkeys.

[PaulHoule]

Perrow’s book Normal Accidents postulates that, given advances which could improve safety, people just decide to emphasize throughput, speed, profits, etc. he turned out to be wrong about aviation (got much safer over time) and maritime shipping (there was a perception of a safety crisis in the late 1970s with oil tankers exploding, now you just hear about the odd exceptional event.)

[Towaway69]

> Perrow argues that multiple and unexpected failures are built into society's complex and tightly coupled systems, and that accidents are unavoidable and cannot be designed around.[1]

This is definitely something that is happening with software systems. The question is: is having an AI that is fundamentally undecipherable in its intention to extend these systems a good approach? Or is an approach of slowing down and fundamentally trying understand the systems we have created a better approach?

Has software become safer? Well planes don't fall from the sky but the number of zero day exploits built into our devices has vastly improved. Is this an issue? Does it matter that software is shipped broken? Only to be fixed with the next update.

I think its hard to have the same measure of safety for software. A bridge is safe because it doesn't fall down. Is email safe when there is spam and phishing attacks? Fundamentally Email is a safe technology only that it allows attacks via phishing. Is that an Email safety problem? Probably not just as as someone having a car accident on a bridge is generally not a result of the bridge.

I think that we don't learn from our mistakes. As developers we tend to coat over the accidents of our software. When was the last time a developer was sued for shipping broken software? When was the last time an engineer was sued for building a broken bridge? Notice that there is an incentive as engineer to build better and safer bridges, for developers those incentives don't exist.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Accidents

[PaulHoule]

The other day I was thinking about how stupid little things in the Javascript ecosystem where you have to change your configuration file "just because" are a real billion-dollar mistake and speculating that I could sue some of the developers in small claims court.

Right away I scoffed when I heard people had 20 agents running in parallel because I've been at my share of startups with 20 person teams that tend to break down somewhere between:

- 20 people that get about as much done as an optimal 5 person team with a lot more burnout and backlash

- There is a sprint every two weeks but the product is never done

and people who are running those teams don't know which one they are!

I'm sure there are better ones out there but even one or two SD north of the mean you find that people are in over their heads. All the ceremony of agile hypnotizes people into thinking they are making progress (we closed tickets!) and have a plan (Sprint board!) and know what they are doing (user stories!)

Put on your fieldworker hat and interview the manager about how the team works [1] and the state of the code base and compare that to the ground truth of the code and you tend to find the manager's mental is somewhere between "just plain wrong" and "not even wrong". Teams like that get things done because there are a few members, maybe even dyads and triads, who know what time it is and quietly make sure the things that are important-but-ignored-by-management are taken care of.

Take away those moral subjects and eliminate the filtering mechanisms that make that 20-person manager better than average and I can't help but think 'gas town' is a joke that isn't even funny. Seems folks have forgotten that Yegge used to blog that he owed all his success in software development to chronic cannabis use, like if wasn't for all that weed there wouldn't be any Google today.

[1] I'll take even odds he doesn't know how long the build takes!

[throwanem]

> Seems folks have forgotten that Yegge used to blog that he owed all his success in software development to chronic cannabis use, like if wasn't for all that weed there wouldn't be any Google today.

I remember a lot of Steve Yegge's impressive claims from back when he and Zed Shaw were what I would call "fringe contemporaries" in the early 2010s - like all the time he spent gassing on about his unmaintainable, barely usable nightmare of a Javascript mode for Emacs. (I did like the MozRepl integration, for what that's worth.)

I don't particularly recall him talking about smoking pot, and I think I would have, if he'd been as memorably effusive there as about js2-mode. But it's been a lot of years and I couldn't begin to remember where to look for an archive of his old blog. Would you happen to have a link?

[NateEag]

The most obvious one is this brilliant piece on complexity:

https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legal...

It doesn't match OP's description, but it certainly fits talk about his pot use.

There may be others.

[nhhvhy]

> planes don’t fall from the sky

Boeing would like a word (; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Au...

[bigfishrunning]

> that's why we now need AIs to understand our code bases

I don't need an AI to understand my code base, and neither do you. You're smarter then you give yourself credit for.

[jimbokun]

The better processes and tools made larger project possible.

[nradov]

Version control is useful but it has nothing to do with software engineering per se. Most software development is craft work which doesn't meet the definition of engineering (and that's usually fine). Conversely, it's possible to do real software engineering without having a modern version control system.

[aduitsis]

And maybe it's dangerous for one to think they're doing engineering when in reality they're doing craft work.

[kakacik]

... but it helps tremendously to have a solid computer engineering background since you are (finding and) transforming hard facts of reality into working code. I'd say its a mix of both, you can't just vibecode (or hack together before current times) a properly beautiful design (whatever that means in given instance).

[dml2135]

What is your definition of engineering, that "craft work" doesn't meet?

[sevenseacat]

The answer to those questions is _still_ 'no' at a lot of companies.

[zer00eyz]

> People don't realize how much software engineering has improved.

It has, but we have gotten there by stacking turtles, by building so many layers of abstraction that things no longer make sense.

Think about this hardware -> hypervisor -> vm -> container -> python/node/ruby run time all to compile it back down to Bytecode to run on a cpu.

Some layers exist because of the push/pull between systems being single user (PC) and multi user (mainframe). We exacerbated the problem when "installable software" became a "hard problem" and wanted to mix in "isolation".

And most of that software is written on another pile of abstractions. Most codebases have disgustingly large dependency trees. People keep talking about how "no one is reviewing all this ai generated code"... Well the majority of devs sure as shit arent reviewing that dependency tree... Just yesterday there was yet another "supply chain attack".

How do you protect yourself from such a thing... stack on more software. You cant really use "sub repositories/modules" in git. It was never built that way because Linus didnt need that. The rest of us really do... so we add something like artifactory to protect us from the massive pile of stuff that you're dependent on but NOT looking at. It's all just more turtles on more piles.

Lots of corporate devs I know are really bad at reviewing code (open source much less so). The PR code review process in many orgs is to either find the person who rubber-stamps and avoid the people who only bike shed. I suspect it's because we have spent the last 20 years on the leet code interview where memorizing algorithms and answering brain teasers was the filter. Not reading, reviewing, debugging and stepping through code... Our entire industry is "what is the new thing", "next framework" pilled because of this.

You are right that it got better, but we got there by doing all the wrong things, and were going to have to rip a lot of things apart and "do better".