|
|
|
|
|
|
by peterwwillis
4370 days ago
|
|
|
Until cybernetics becomes more mature and cost-effective i'm pretty sure we all have a limited lifespan. What's funny is you see this article as a kind of threat, while the author is voicing his concern for the threat of the advance of technology for technology's sake in contrast to his shrinking interest in learning additional skills over time. If you think about it, it's kind of depressing. Like a cobbler having to learn how to repair a newly invented shoe every couple years, constantly purchasing new tools and learning how they work, only to have the business change a few quarters later. A constant churn of a technological wheel that doesn't get the cobbler anywhere other than the exact same place. You'd think the world would be happy with the old, long-lasting, easily-repaired leather oxfords. But that isn't the case with technology, and I share the author's lament for less unnecessary complication. |
|
|
And, while I disagree with your reading of the article, I do agree that change for the sake of change is a bad idea, and it is something that just increases risk without benefit. However, I don't think all of the change (or maybe even a majority of it) in software is the result of change for change's sake. Most of the change I've seen in my career has been complex abstractions of even more complex realities. The Java VM was a complex abstraction to an even more complex reality of developing in heterogeneous computing environments (I think it's something else now, having evolved as the computing environment has changed). This abstraction reduces complexity in many ways, making it possible for developers to do more, but it comes at a cost of needing to know more places where abstractions leak and how to deal with those leaks.