Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I wholeheartedly agree with this perspective.

    As with most creative pursuits, the best things happen when there's a clear point of view.

    Unfortunately, the best things aren't always the most commercially successful, because products are only a small part of what makes a company successful. I think we're seeing this play out in the software market.

    JIRA might be objectively awful, but it still manages to print money!

    by iamcalledrob
  • Give two different people the same problem, and you'll likely get two different solutions shaped by differing experiences and ways of thinking. I think software is an example of this manifested.
    by nagalluri
  • A practical problem with the intuition approach is that you have no possible way to measure two people’s intuitions against each other. In smaller organizations that’s fine, but anytime you get larger you can’t weigh the intuition of 50 people against each other
    by dozerly
  • This is everything not just software. Although a lot of what we wear, eat and drink come from factory, if it didn't, you can always tell the someone behind it. Handcrafted things easily have more value and I find myself thinking more about it only after it affected what I did daily (software). Since Industrial revolution, countless things have gone to the factories. Makes me think how little we really empathize as humans.
    by conqrr
  • In his book Programming as Theory Building, Peter Naur viewed programming not as the act of generating source code, but as the act of building a theory about the problem and its solution.

    He said the lifecycle of a program ends when the development team is disbanded or when knowledge transfer fails to happen. But these days, people develop with AI. Will that knowledge actually remain? There's a slightly tircky point here

    Of course, even in the past, once a codebase got big enough, everyone was writing code on top of an incomplete theory. But when you delegate work to AI, the theory itself isn't yours anymore, which makes it even trickier.

    by jdw64
  • This age will be brilliant for sorting between those who care about "done" as in "technically complete" vs "done" as "creates enduring value for the person on the other end of it". AI largely only does the former.
    by kristianc
  • I enjoyed the introduction. I just picked up “The mind of the Maker” by Sayers, which Fred Brooks cites in The Mythical Man Month: “ Dorothy Sayers, in her excellent book, The Mind of the Maker, divides creative activity into three stages: the idea, the implementation, and the interaction. A book, then, or a computer, or a program comes into existence first as an ideal construct, built outside time and space, but complete in the mind of the author.” He goes on to say how the user meets the mind of the maker in the interaction: “The creation is complete when someone reads the book, uses the computer, or runs the program, thereby interacting with the mind of the maker.”
    by ajrouvoet
  • Fantastic take. I always thought so, but couldn't express it so well. After reading the first paragraph, my heart flickered. This will be the only determining thing in the age of AI - someone who shapes the things based on its own intuition and taste, based on experience. I did that a lot in my IT carier leading a bunch of projects. I care about each of them, deeply.
    by majkinetor

Explore Birbla archives