I was doing some thinking last night, and I came to the conclusion that there is but one truly serious problem in software development, and that is the question of suicide.
The software developer is trapped in a futile search for meaning and clarity in a world of imperfect tools and techniques. Lest he is an arrogant fool, he knows that his work is imperfect. His code will surely contain bugs, security vulnerabilities will be found, holes will appear, and his system will bend and eventually break.
He knows that one day his creation will no longer resemble the pristine art form that he had envisioned. In the beginning, his creation is analogous to DaVinci's Last Supper, as he boldly experiments with new mediums that distinguish his piece from the rest. But while his creation is beautiful, it is not durable. Over the years, layers of patches will be applied in an attempt to restore the crumbling masterpiece. But those who attempt to restore the piece will not be DaVincis, will not share his vision, and eventually little of the original creation will be left.
He is enlightened to the fact that any non-trivial software system, no matter how well designed, is nothing more than a tenuously constructed scaffolding. Yet he ventures forth anyways, armed with the programmatic equivalents of crazy glue, duct tape, and cheap hacks mixed with glitter. He is much like Sisyphus in his quest, pushing his rock up the mountain, only to watch it roll down again for eternity. Faced with the realization of the absurdity of his situation, what should he do?
You sound somewhat delusional, especially regarding software development. I think you should write more trivial programs.
I think you should stay about from kernels and focus on getting your myspace page to validate
> Faced with the realization of the absurdity of his situation, what should he do?
I'm convinced that we're all masochists at heart.
While the post is tongue-in-cheek, I agree with most of it anyway.
Try to write "Hello World!". It may take you some days to get it done but its the way that counts.
>>6
you should try to write "Hello World!" in quantum brainfuck.
>>7
some of my fondest times were spent hacking quantum brainfuck
Software isn't an art form. Art doesn't have to work for people to enjoy it. Software also isn't like a building. There's no gravity inside the computer to break things. Software can have weird things hanging off the sides and upside down and no one other than the developers will even know about it. Users will make judgments about the user interface, but not how the code is formatted or if the variables are named using Hungarian notation.
Note: IAAPSD (I am a professional software developer)
>>3-4,6
Oh, you're such a hardcore programming scientists, you should help Microsoft and NASA out! For some reason their software isn't perfect yet.
> Software isn't an art form.
Yes it is. I start with nothing and when I'm done, there is something that was created by me, by my imagination, by my understanding and vision, no one else will create something exactly like that. How can you not call this art?
The first and broadest sense of "art" is the one that has remained closest to the older Latin meaning, which roughly translates to "skill" or "craft," and also from an Indo-European root meaning "arrangement" or "to arrange." In this sense, art is whatever is described as having undergone a deliberate process of arrangement by an agent.
Art - from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Art doesn't have to work for people to enjoy it.
Sometimes it does. You're talking about fine art, programming is more like applied arts.
> Software also isn't like a building. There's no gravity inside the computer to break things.
I'm not sure I see what you're saying here, but there are a lot of things that can brake software with time. Libraries, hardware, user requirements - to name just few.
> Software can have weird things hanging off the sides and upside down and no one other than the developers will even know about it.
If I carve a sculpture, don't show it to anyone. Does that make it less beautiful, less valuable, less a work of art? I don't think so. Besides, open source movement is really wonderful. I could never create anything closed source.
> Users will make judgments about the user interface, but not how the code..
That is way I don't (like to) create software for users, they can't possibly understand and appreciate my work. Unfortunately, I need food and shelter. When I truly create software, I do it for myself and other programmers or technical people, they see.
> Note: IAAPSD
I am too. Not that it matters..
>> Art doesn't have to work for people to enjoy it.
> Sometimes it does. You're talking about fine art, programming is more like applied arts.
And then you've got the demo scene, which is really about as close to software-as-art-for-art's-sake as you can get.
This seems relevant:
http://runme.org/ - say it with software art!
>>10
lawl
lolerskates
lawl
lol
lawl
rofles
lawl
roflemao
lawl
Ain't it sad when you write a piece of software and then you let someone less experienced to contribute and the next day you aren't even able to recognize your code.
>>15
Why, because they fucked it up?
>>16
alzheimer's.