Anybody remember uninstalling and re-installing the tcp stack in windows 95 10 times until the internet finally started working again? I don't have that problem anymore.
No, I think you missed the point he was making. The developer-first approach to software is pretty much everywhere, even linux and mobile. Look at the JavaScript dev environment on linux, for instance, and the terribly inneficient and janky software that comes from it. However, it's hard to argue that the bloat has not made the development of simple applications way faster. So "software technology is going backwards" is kind of a nonsense statement. What part of it? Maybe it is true in the pure computational sense, but software tech is a lot more than that. The development productivity seems to be advancing in leaps and bounds. Blow tries to argue that developers were more productive back in the 90s; maybe from a pure SLOC standpoint, yes, modern developers write less code, but they certainly can get a lot more software done in less time using modern tools.
it's such a dead meme to blame everything on windows, and as much as I hate using windows, it's ignorant to say windows is the reason for why modern tech is declining.
i always think about that. what if old people in tech and other areas keep evolving things but newer generations dont know the motives of changes they just accept things because they are new and everyone talks about it, then they just dont use things correctly as they dont know the motives they are using certain things and not others. disaster. the reality is that everyone is just interested in improving his little area and not in spreading the information, in actually making the thing sustainable, thinking outside of yourself who already know everything because you got the lucky to live in a certain period of time. people just dont start of the point the others left, they start at the same point the other started. there is a need to improve communication
I haven't watched an entire talk yet, but can add to the heap of thoughts. First, and the biggest reason for software to fail, is building process. We usually build on existing packages and libraries, combining them in one way or another. User no longer needs to understand bare bones of hardware and low-level software to program. User can jusf use framework(s) or programs that always have bugs due to ASAP-developing paradigm (CI/CD). Second, software market is too overvalued, and people get there mostly not because it is of their greatest life interest, but because it gives stable and arbitrarily large income. Overall, in the early days of software developing was mostly either for highly educated people or enthusiasts. And since everything was much closer to hardware, developer had to actually know what (s)he was doing. Nowadays, tool set is huge, and building on top of it only adds to the size.
I mean... How to document an entire lifetime's amassed expertise? The greybeards grew up at the edge of this technology and collected 50 years of experience as they aged with the field. Much of what they know, they would not know they need to communicate. Eventually, there's loss. And all the later generations can do is reverse engineer to attempt to regain what was lost.
@@jks234 sure .. it just all feels you know.. silly 😕 it's as if making documentation was some sort of impossible effort .. and when miracle happens and someone writes one it immediately gets misplaced somewhere 🤔
If software is riding on the shoulders of hardware giants, would everything else be riding on shoulders of debt that cannot have proper and swift legal claims or else the entire notion of currency & GDP falls apart? Sure makesAttacking each other to protect their own economic image via foreverConflicts worth it... 🙄
yes, the entire modern monetary theory used in most of the economies in the world is totally a house of cards made in a sand embankment. its a miracle it didn't implode that time that evergreen ship got stuck, or years before when they stupidly decided to close everything down because some ground-up who/wmf entitled brats where having a power trip. its amazing the system still works, despite the conflicts
This is a little like "old man yelling at clouds." While identifying the problem is nice, it cannot be fixed on its own. If you want to bring improvement to software, you'll have to do it yourself. I happen to currently do it too, as I work on a new game. It's a space combat/exploration game that has a single realm able to host 10000s of players (it just needs to have physical servers added to the server cluster). And it has the size of the observable universe with cm-accuracy, meaning moving to other galaxies is possible in the late-game. This alone is technologically ambitious, but it's almost done. And there were parts of 12/10 difficulty. I just need to make the game fun... I barely got to the part where I actually can work on gameplay itself. But I have a ton of notes in which I both memorize ideas and ToDos, and where I crystallize out the best/most fitting ones.
I spent 5 years and a bit over $3M doing a similar thing. "just need to make the game fun" is what killed the studio after we built the engine and a small game on top of it. An almost infinite universe is a very large place to fill with compelling experiences. Make something small scale that is fun and then build the tech and scale after you have a few thousand passionate players who are willing to buy it. You need so much more than scaling tech to make a game. The games industry is a cruel place.
@@Toleich Right, but I also have a vision for the gameplay itself. It's a complex system of mathematical formulas and interactions. The space ship and item stat distribution itself has 3 dimensions: It scales from size 1 (small) to 4 (capital ship), whereas size matters for most formulas; it has to work for varying attribute distributions (=simplification, 7 attributes define all stats), whereas it must work for extreme spikes of stats, just as for base stats of ships; and ship type stat variance must also make sense. Aside from that I worked out the best (most fitting) health/damage system. I also have a clear vision as to how combat should look like - for example large ships should have extended fight durations. I also want drone ships. I want carriers to have interceptors. I want death to be less punished. I want the design to be kinetic and explosive without laser light shows. As of what to do - I intend to create factions with AI (aka my own algorithms), which act organically. Meaning they mine resources, they expand, they support their territory, and if they are harmed, they are focused on rebuilding. They also vary in behavior, meaning some may be retaliatory, some are passive, some are aggressive, etc. Players can either fight them alone or in groups (co-op), and the closer they are to the center of their region, the more difficult it gets. Players can build space stations early, so they can either play passively and harvest resources and/or produce and/or trade, or play PvE. If they are passive, they may be raided by such factions. The transport missions they auto-create may have players be intercepted by them. These players may also auto-create missions for players to cause destruction to these factions as to distract them. So there is an eco-system of players supporting each other indirectly. This is another algorithmic challenge, along with being able to create sufficiently interesting, varying, procedurally generated solar systems. The good part is, I can do it all alone. And a lot is already done. The technically and mathematically most challenging parts are already done. This will not be a throw-away game that may or may not work out, like most indie games. I can manifest my vision without any obstruction and compromise.
@@brianviktor8212 I genuinely wish you the best. If you've got a discord or webpage for it I would love to follow development and hopefully play it sometime.
@@Toleich Thank you, but I have nothing yet. I am working on it first, and when it is finished enough to show good combat, I'll publicize it. But it will happen... my future income depends on that. As soon as it makes sufficient income I can hire people to do certain parts of it I am not good at, or don't like doing, like the bureaucratic things.
@@youtubeenjoyer1743 I haven't watched it, I watched the original. I only commented because I see these clips channels pop up a lot in my feed and I was wondering if they got permission to upload them. Why so hostile?
9:16 dude, stop complaining and just do it. You don’t like a program? Make a new one… you don’t like an OS? Make a new one… you don’t like the HTML specification? Make a new one. nothing stopping you.
@@br3nto yeah it just didn’t sound like complaining to me, that’s all. more like a critique or just sharing his thoughts on the state of programming, since he was invited to a talk to do just that. i understand that you felt differently.
Anybody remember uninstalling and re-installing the tcp stack in windows 95 10 times until the internet finally started working again? I don't have that problem anymore.
its going backwards from his perspective because he uses windows.
No, I think you missed the point he was making. The developer-first approach to software is pretty much everywhere, even linux and mobile. Look at the JavaScript dev environment on linux, for instance, and the terribly inneficient and janky software that comes from it.
However, it's hard to argue that the bloat has not made the development of simple applications way faster. So "software technology is going backwards" is kind of a nonsense statement. What part of it? Maybe it is true in the pure computational sense, but software tech is a lot more than that. The development productivity seems to be advancing in leaps and bounds. Blow tries to argue that developers were more productive back in the 90s; maybe from a pure SLOC standpoint, yes, modern developers write less code, but they certainly can get a lot more software done in less time using modern tools.
it's such a dead meme to blame everything on windows, and as much as I hate using windows, it's ignorant to say windows is the reason for why modern tech is declining.
Sounds like something a hardware engineer would say ;)
i always think about that. what if old people in tech and other areas keep evolving things but newer generations dont know the motives of changes they just accept things because they are new and everyone talks about it, then they just dont use things correctly as they dont know the motives they are using certain things and not others. disaster.
the reality is that everyone is just interested in improving his little area and not in spreading the information, in actually making the thing sustainable, thinking outside of yourself who already know everything because you got the lucky to live in a certain period of time.
people just dont start of the point the others left, they start at the same point the other started. there is a need to improve communication
I haven't watched an entire talk yet, but can add to the heap of thoughts. First, and the biggest reason for software to fail, is building process. We usually build on existing packages and libraries, combining them in one way or another. User no longer needs to understand bare bones of hardware and low-level software to program. User can jusf use framework(s) or programs that always have bugs due to ASAP-developing paradigm (CI/CD). Second, software market is too overvalued, and people get there mostly not because it is of their greatest life interest, but because it gives stable and arbitrarily large income. Overall, in the early days of software developing was mostly either for highly educated people or enthusiasts. And since everything was much closer to hardware, developer had to actually know what (s)he was doing. Nowadays, tool set is huge, and building on top of it only adds to the size.
Where is the full video
linked in description
DEVO was right, Devolution is real
maybe we are as a species just bad at documenting stuff? many large software bases are still documented with the word-of-mouth method 🤔
I mean...
How to document an entire lifetime's amassed expertise?
The greybeards grew up at the edge of this technology and collected 50 years of experience as they aged with the field.
Much of what they know, they would not know they need to communicate.
Eventually, there's loss. And all the later generations can do is reverse engineer to attempt to regain what was lost.
@@jks234 sure .. it just all feels you know.. silly 😕
it's as if making documentation was some sort of impossible effort .. and when miracle happens and someone writes one it immediately gets misplaced somewhere 🤔
If software is riding on the shoulders of hardware giants, would everything else be riding on shoulders of debt that cannot have proper and swift legal claims or else the entire notion of currency & GDP falls apart?
Sure makesAttacking each other to protect their own economic image via foreverConflicts worth it... 🙄
yes, the entire modern monetary theory used in most of the economies in the world is totally a house of cards made in a sand embankment. its a miracle it didn't implode that time that evergreen ship got stuck, or years before when they stupidly decided to close everything down because some ground-up who/wmf entitled brats where having a power trip.
its amazing the system still works, despite the conflicts
This is a little like "old man yelling at clouds." While identifying the problem is nice, it cannot be fixed on its own. If you want to bring improvement to software, you'll have to do it yourself. I happen to currently do it too, as I work on a new game. It's a space combat/exploration game that has a single realm able to host 10000s of players (it just needs to have physical servers added to the server cluster). And it has the size of the observable universe with cm-accuracy, meaning moving to other galaxies is possible in the late-game.
This alone is technologically ambitious, but it's almost done. And there were parts of 12/10 difficulty. I just need to make the game fun... I barely got to the part where I actually can work on gameplay itself. But I have a ton of notes in which I both memorize ideas and ToDos, and where I crystallize out the best/most fitting ones.
John is working on a new programming language and compiler for it, both specifically for games.
I spent 5 years and a bit over $3M doing a similar thing. "just need to make the game fun" is what killed the studio after we built the engine and a small game on top of it. An almost infinite universe is a very large place to fill with compelling experiences.
Make something small scale that is fun and then build the tech and scale after you have a few thousand passionate players who are willing to buy it. You need so much more than scaling tech to make a game. The games industry is a cruel place.
@@Toleich Right, but I also have a vision for the gameplay itself. It's a complex system of mathematical formulas and interactions. The space ship and item stat distribution itself has 3 dimensions: It scales from size 1 (small) to 4 (capital ship), whereas size matters for most formulas; it has to work for varying attribute distributions (=simplification, 7 attributes define all stats), whereas it must work for extreme spikes of stats, just as for base stats of ships; and ship type stat variance must also make sense.
Aside from that I worked out the best (most fitting) health/damage system. I also have a clear vision as to how combat should look like - for example large ships should have extended fight durations. I also want drone ships. I want carriers to have interceptors. I want death to be less punished. I want the design to be kinetic and explosive without laser light shows.
As of what to do - I intend to create factions with AI (aka my own algorithms), which act organically. Meaning they mine resources, they expand, they support their territory, and if they are harmed, they are focused on rebuilding. They also vary in behavior, meaning some may be retaliatory, some are passive, some are aggressive, etc.
Players can either fight them alone or in groups (co-op), and the closer they are to the center of their region, the more difficult it gets.
Players can build space stations early, so they can either play passively and harvest resources and/or produce and/or trade, or play PvE. If they are passive, they may be raided by such factions. The transport missions they auto-create may have players be intercepted by them. These players may also auto-create missions for players to cause destruction to these factions as to distract them. So there is an eco-system of players supporting each other indirectly.
This is another algorithmic challenge, along with being able to create sufficiently interesting, varying, procedurally generated solar systems. The good part is, I can do it all alone. And a lot is already done. The technically and mathematically most challenging parts are already done.
This will not be a throw-away game that may or may not work out, like most indie games. I can manifest my vision without any obstruction and compromise.
@@brianviktor8212 I genuinely wish you the best. If you've got a discord or webpage for it I would love to follow development and hopefully play it sometime.
@@Toleich Thank you, but I have nothing yet. I am working on it first, and when it is finished enough to show good combat, I'll publicize it. But it will happen... my future income depends on that. As soon as it makes sufficient income I can hire people to do certain parts of it I am not good at, or don't like doing, like the bureaucratic things.
do you get permission to upload these
@HallMonitorNarc Does your mom know you’re gay (happy)?
do you give a shit about someone uploading someone's videos on someone's video hosting platform?
@@youtubeenjoyer1743 yeah if they're not getting permission then I don't want to watch it
@@spiritwolf448 well you’ve just watched it at least twice
@@youtubeenjoyer1743 I haven't watched it, I watched the original. I only commented because I see these clips channels pop up a lot in my feed and I was wondering if they got permission to upload them. Why so hostile?
You are top tier programmer, a god among us, but jai aint gonna cut it brother.
9:16 dude, stop complaining and just do it. You don’t like a program? Make a new one… you don’t like an OS? Make a new one… you don’t like the HTML specification? Make a new one. nothing stopping you.
He is making his own programming language and compiler for it.
@@Salantor ah good. He should stop complaining then.
@@br3ntohe’s doing it and he’s trying to get others to do it
@@truthhc others are doing it every day. Just not the way he likes it. That’s his problem, not everyone else’s.
@@br3nto yeah it just didn’t sound like complaining to me, that’s all. more like a critique or just sharing his thoughts on the state of programming, since he was invited to a talk to do just that. i understand that you felt differently.