Perhaps by analogy to territorial colonization? Programmers are like prospectors, trying to find shiny, expensive spots amid a vast desert of potential code sequences, the overwhelming majority of which are garbage. Once a section of idea-space is found to be valuable and habitable, franchise-builders are like early law enforcement: the law doesn’t have to be perfect, there’s no motherlode to aim for. It just has to lay down some standards the people are willing to accept, and then enforce them consistently enough that society can continue to stabilize.
A law like “don’t murder people for pocket change” that people will accept in New York, they’ll probably accept in Santa Fe too. But a rock that had gold under it in Santa Fe won’t still have gold under it after you carry it back to New York.
I’m not sure you get the issue that is the problem.
think about it by comparing to another creative process: painting art.
What “methodology” can be put in place to always ensure that your art is exceptional?
Sure—you can find techniques that have worked in the past… but if you enforce only one way to paint, then you’ll destroy all creativity… which is kinda the point with art.
For programming—creativity in solving problems is the key. Every problem is different—and sure, there are techniques that have been useful in the past—but if you enforce them, rigidly—it stops a new. creative breakthrough of a solution… and creative breakthroughs—innovative ways of solving problems is kinda the point with programming.
I agree that a set of heuristics are useful… ie the equivalent to your general rules.
but AFAICT, there’s no way that it can ever settle down into a set of rules in the way that laws can. Fundamentally, programming needs to remain fluid and flexible—it needs to always remain a bit of a frontier… to leave it open to new innovations. Just like art will never settle down to be “just one methodology”.
Perhaps by analogy to territorial colonization? Programmers are like prospectors, trying to find shiny, expensive spots amid a vast desert of potential code sequences, the overwhelming majority of which are garbage. Once a section of idea-space is found to be valuable and habitable, franchise-builders are like early law enforcement: the law doesn’t have to be perfect, there’s no motherlode to aim for. It just has to lay down some standards the people are willing to accept, and then enforce them consistently enough that society can continue to stabilize.
A law like “don’t murder people for pocket change” that people will accept in New York, they’ll probably accept in Santa Fe too. But a rock that had gold under it in Santa Fe won’t still have gold under it after you carry it back to New York.
I’m not sure you get the issue that is the problem.
think about it by comparing to another creative process: painting art.
What “methodology” can be put in place to always ensure that your art is exceptional? Sure—you can find techniques that have worked in the past… but if you enforce only one way to paint, then you’ll destroy all creativity… which is kinda the point with art.
For programming—creativity in solving problems is the key. Every problem is different—and sure, there are techniques that have been useful in the past—but if you enforce them, rigidly—it stops a new. creative breakthrough of a solution… and creative breakthroughs—innovative ways of solving problems is kinda the point with programming.
I agree that a set of heuristics are useful… ie the equivalent to your general rules.
but AFAICT, there’s no way that it can ever settle down into a set of rules in the way that laws can. Fundamentally, programming needs to remain fluid and flexible—it needs to always remain a bit of a frontier… to leave it open to new innovations. Just like art will never settle down to be “just one methodology”.
Anything you can do reliably will rapidly cease being “exceptional.”
Yes, that’s true.
And in computing—anything that’s not exceptional rapidly ceases to be acceptable.