I found it hard to read the whole thing.
Quote:
we expect to do too little
|
Way off.
Way off. Zonbu will sell you a tiny computer containing
all the software you expect a modern machine to support. Modern games have so many missions that it takes days to play the "core" game and weeks to work though all the other missions. Buy an Apple Mac, and you get two dual-layer DVDs (roughtly 16GB total) with pre-installed and optional software.
Quote:
We should expect to learn
|
Already do. Eclipse has so many APIs that it's hard to keep up. Actually that true of Java (and dot-net, I assume) in general.
Quote:
Users and software designers should embrace personality and style
|
Software designers are engineers, and by definition
have no style. This isn't an insult; I program for the logical fun, not the creative freedom. And even worse, software with
too much style becomes hard to use.
Why? We don't accept it anywhere else. What happens when your car breaks? Your faucet? A wrench?
Quote:
British railroads went bankrupt building the rail system they wanted
|
20/20 hindsight. Intel fell into the same trap trying to build a high-gigahertz low-efficiency chip. They failed; AMD ate their lunch with high-efficiency low-speed chips. And Intel's new chip is both high-speed and high-efficiency. I can't tell if there's a lesson in this, except maybe the one from Extreme Programming: only solve the problems you actually have.
Our hardware is in constant transition, our software paradigms are broken. Well engineered software isn't flexible; flexible software breaks your customizations with the next release. These problems are being solved, and the solutions introduce more problems.
I can't figure out what the moral to all this is. But this article is nowhere as deep as it seems.