Arne Babenhauserheide
@flomaraninchi once we were used to tinker with the physical objects we bought.
We shortened chairs, corrected trousers, and yes: tuned cars (I didn’t, but many did).
I do not see it as an improvement that most people don’t do that anymore.
@khinsen @civodul @zimoun @zacchiro
Florence Maraninchi ⏚ NFP
@khinsen @civodul @ArneBab @zimoun @zacchiro
On this point (the difference between software and physical objects, and the fact that in SW we sell prototypes):
Versatility and flexibility in software is usually seen as a benediction. But it's also a curse because these properties are often confused with the proper objective of a piece of software. I mean, there are very nice properties at the design phase, but why should all the objects produced be stuck at this design phase forever?
1/N
Arne Babenhauserheide
@flomaraninchi maybe the drill is the wrong analogy then. If you compare software to a workbench, you get something quite similar.
(that said: where does software say that providing for *maximal* evolution is *always* the best? There are many systems which solve a problem and tell people to use another tool to solve a different problem — I’d rather say that most systems limit their scope: a music player is a music player, a database is a database)
@khinsen @civodul @zimoun @zacchiro
Florence Maraninchi ⏚ NFP
@ArneBab @khinsen @civodul @zimoun @zacchiro
I worked on critical embedded systems which are often of the second kind, and I'm often puzzled by the usual views for "ordinary" software, according to which providing for maximal evolution is always the best choice. Regardless of the additional cost.
2/2
Florence Maraninchi ⏚ NFP
@ArneBab @khinsen @civodul @zimoun @zacchiro
Well, with some physical limitations, though 🙂
But I agree. What I meant for SW is that we go far beyond allowing small modifications like that. And there is a trade-off to be found between
- allowing for very hypothetical future evolutions, but it costs something in complexity, both at the design phase and in the final product
- selling a completely "closed", non-evolving object
1/2
Arne Babenhauserheide
@flomaraninchi with a workbench, you replace and improve different parts over time, and sometimes they don’t fit the other parts as well for a while (until the other parts are adapted).
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.