• The Continuous Amnesia Issue

    From Ben Collver@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 15 22:34:53 2024
    The Continuous Amnesia Issue
    ============================
    by Uwe Friedrichsen
    October 2, 2020

    As an industry we continuously forget what we have learned

    The continuous amnesia issue
    ============================
    In this post I want to discuss an issue that I, being for a longer
    time in IT meanwhile, observe over and over again. It is the
    observation that as an industry we continuously forget what we have
    learned.

    What do I mean with that claim?

    The very first discussion--again and again and ... ==================================================
    Probably I best illustrate this by sharing an experience I had. About
    two years ago I attended an unconference. It was not the first time I
    attended it. I liked it a lot. It always had a very energetic
    atmosphere. The participants were very active, loved to share and
    discuss. But unlike the previous times, I decided to do something
    different that year.

    As an experiment, I decided not to share myself, not to offer
    sessions myself where I drive the topic of discussion, but to listen
    only. I know that this is not the idea of an unconference, but I was
    curious. As I wrote: It was a little experiment, I wanted to conduct.

    I knew that always a very active group of people gathered at this
    unconference and I wanted to use that as an unbiased opportunity to
    learn about the state of IT, how people think about topics, what
    moves them, and so on. So, I looked forward to what I would learn.

    To be frank, it was a devastating experience for me.

    The session that really killed it was a session about reusability. A
    group of people came together to discuss reusability. I was really
    curious as I dealt with the topic for many years already. A great
    community. A topic I am particularly interested in. I was looking
    forward to learning something new. I did not expect a lot of new
    ideas, but maybe one or two.

    So, I listened ... and could not believe what I heard.

    The discussion moved at a level as if nobody ever had said or written
    a single word about reusability in the past 50 years. I felt set back
    to a pre-1968 discussion, set back to a time before the NATO Software Engineering Conferences were held. Where had all the ideas about
    reusability from the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and all the years
    after gone?

    Obviously, nobody in the room ever had heard anything about what we
    as an industry already had figured out about reusability. They
    discussed the topic completely from scratch, and due to that in a
    totally naive way, not touching any of the important learning of the
    last 50 years. I sat there listening and did not understand what
    happened. I felt the urge to jump up and scream: "Shut up, all of
    you! You do not know sh*t about reusability!"

    Of course, I did not. Besides the fact that it would have been very
    rude, it also would have been unfair.

    As I wrote before: It was a very active community that gathered
    there, all of them adding with their best intentions to a vibrant
    discussion. So, I eventually decided to leave. Not all sessions felt
    as devastating as this one but I had similar experiences in most of
    the sessions I attended.

    I was quite confused and had a lot to ponder. I went to the
    conference to learn something new and ... well, I learned something
    new. But it was definitely not what I expected to learn. I learned
    that the people in the sessions I attended did not seem to have any
    knowledge about the discussions that we had before in our industry
    about the very topics.

    Continuous collective amnesia
    =============================
    What happened? It kept me a while thinking. Eventually, I realized
    that I had observed a disease of our whole industry in its purest
    form: We continuously forget what we have learned. We always reinvent everything from scratch. My personal observation is that discussions
    in the IT community start over about every 5 years [1]. That is how
    long we remember as a community. After that we need to rediscover
    your insights from scratch.

    Or how I like to phrase it in a bit provocative way:

    In IT, we suffer from continuous collective amnesia and we are even
    proud of it! [2]

    Again, this is not about the people who discussed in that room. All
    of them did their best, they eagerly discussed hoping to gather new
    insights. They were simply victims of a widespread disease in IT:

    We do not value the wisdom of the past.

    We suffer from extreme youth obsession, not only regarding the age of
    people but also regarding how we value knowledge. Old knowledge is
    considered "worthless", while new knowledge is considered "great".

    A tweet that Mark, founder of Bitmen Studios sent me in a little
    conversion we had via Twitter IMO really nicely describes the
    effect:

    My point here is rather not searching for a unique "best" solution
    but everywhere software devs across the globe are solving the
    "same" problem again and again (and fall into the same pitfalls).
    The increase in tech needed and the associated complexity amplifies
    that problem.

    We reinvent the wheel over and over again, making the same mistakes
    again and again, not learning as a community. And as Mark correctly
    pointed out, the growing technology complexity amplifies the
    problem--and, as I would like to add, vice versa: Our continuous
    collective amnesia amplifies our growing complexity problem.

    Why is it this way? Why do we loose our collective memory every
    5 years?

    I am not sure about the causes. My current attempt of an explanation
    consists of 5 factors:

    1. We consider ourselves a dynamic, fast moving industry. New
    concepts, tools and technologies emerge every day. How can
    knowledge of yesterday still be applicable to problems of today?
    That is what we keep telling ourselves. We wallow in our perceived
    vigor and speed of innovation, neglecting that we keep solving the
    same problems over and over again, just with different tools and
    technologies. Yes, some things change, but usually 80%+ of the
    problems stay the same. But we refuse to see that. We prefer
    considering ourselves the "masters of new".

    2. We are technology believers. We are convinced that we can solve
    any problem by simply applying the right tool or technology. E.g.,
    if people have a collaboration problem, the typical reflex is to
    look for a tool that solves the problem, neglecting that it almost
    certainly is not a tool problem. The same is true for all other
    kinds of problems. Whenever we face a non-trivial problem, we try
    to solve it by applying a tool or technology to it instead of
    solving the actual problem. This has become such a natural pattern
    that we do not realize it anymore. And as past tools and
    technologies did not solve the problem, we look for new ones.

    3. Insights grow slower than knowledge. Our knowledge continuously
    grows, the longer we work in IT. Of course, not everything we
    learn is valuable. Quite often we learn that some of our knowledge
    is plain crap. If I, e.g., think back to SOA: Wow, what a crap!
    Would never do it again this way! But not everything was bad. I
    also took some great insights from the SOA times. It takes times
    to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the beginning of our
    careers we basically learn new stuff all the time. It takes some
    years until we start to see the recurring patterns, to separate
    real insights from plain knowledge.

    4. We face a continuous stream of new developers. I feel as if I face
    a new generation of developers every 5 years [3]. Maybe that is a
    very subjective experience. But for me, people just coming from
    their IT education, being 5 years in business, 10 years or 15
    years and more feel very different, like different generations.
    All those new people in IT have to build their own insights from
    scratch. They have nothing to build on as in IT we created a
    cult(ure) of new, celebrating the new and despising the old.

    5. If you combine the "cult of new" with what I call "the arrogance
    of the youth", you get an explosive mixture. Before you think that
    I want to talk bad about younger people: I just talk from personal
    experience. I was a graduate myself years ago and believe me: I
    was arrogant! I knew better! I had to learn humbleness the hard
    way, and I am still not sure if I arrived (it is a lot easier to
    judge an old self than to judge the current self). So, I do not
    want to reproach any young person for being somewhat arrogant. I
    guess that is natural and also healthy to a certain degree because
    it helps against persisting in outdated ideas as an industry. But
    in a culture of new, this habit works as an unhealthy accelerant.

    If we put these factors together, we end up with an environment where
    we only value new things and despise old things. If we face a
    problem, we never look if someone solved the same problem before [4].
    We only look for a shiny new solution, ideally a new tool or
    technology. If we learn a good solution for a problem, we forget it
    after a few years and start again from scratch.

    It is not that individuals do not learn and do not grow insights.
    They do.

    But as a community, we do not.

    Unlike other engineering disciplines, we do not create our body of
    knowledge, foster our timeless insights, work to extract the essence
    from the solutions we found yesterday and make it available to the
    community of today. We do not only not create a body of knowledge, we
    despise it. We always look to the horizon hoping to spot a silver
    bullet (which does not exist as we know) instead of looking back once
    in a while and trying to learn from the wisdom of our ancestors.

    Moving on
    =========
    This is what I observe all the time. Again, this does not mean that I
    do not meet individuals who act differently. But in general, I see
    the same discussions recurring again and again about every 5 years.

    To be honest, I do not have an actual idea how to change this. This
    cult of new is so deeply embedded in our culture and self-perception
    that it would take a long time and effort to change it.

    Personally, I try to share some of the old wisdom, e.g., with my talk "Excavating the knowledge of the ancestors". There is also the
    "Papers We Love" movement that tries to share such knowledge.

    But overall this is just a drop in the ocean. It would require a
    radical rethinking to stop our continuous collective amnesia. We
    would need to accept that most of our problems are not new, but that
    most of the times we solve the same problems again and again, just
    with different technology.

    But until we learn this, I am afraid we are not yet an engineering
    discipline, but rather a bunch of people obsessed with "new", not
    learning.

    As so often, there would be a lot more to write. But I leave it here.
    I hope I gave you something to ponder.

    And maybe you will come up with a great idea how to change it. If you
    have one, please share it! We need it--more desperately than most
    people are aware of ...

    [1]
    Maybe it is 7 years, maybe just 4 years, depending on the topic. But
    if you are long enough in this industry, you start to get these
    deja-vu feelings more and more often.

    [2]
    I explain the "we are even proud of it" part a bit further down the
    post. Basically it means that we celebrate ourselves for being so
    "innovative" and "fast moving", using it as a welcome excuse to
    ignore everything we could learn from the past.

    [3]
    I have seen charts that claim the number of software engineers
    doubles every 5 years. As I do not know the source of these charts, I
    cannot tell if they are right or wrong. Yet, any level of growth
    would leave us with more inexperienced engineers than experienced
    engineers at any point in time which would amplify the "lack of
    actual insights" effect.

    [4]
    I do not talk about coding tips shared on platforms like Stack
    Overflow. I talk about more fundamental problems like, e.g., the
    aforementioned reusability, its benefits and risks, when to use it,
    when to avoid it, what you need to consider, etc. I talk about the
    insights that outlast technology waves.

    From: <https://www.ufried.com/blog/continuous_amnesia_issue/>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Ben Collver on Tue Apr 16 10:51:21 2024
    I agree. Many have been the tims when the tiniest company with the tiniest application has insisted on moving it over to k8s, when a regular VM with
    a classic LAMP-stack (or equivalent) would have done a better and more
    reliable job, for a vastly lower price.

    But oh no, everything has to be k8s these days, even if the service only
    has 10 local users that just use a web frontend to enter data in a
    database.

    On Mon, 15 Apr 2024, Ben Collver wrote:

    The Continuous Amnesia Issue
    ============================
    by Uwe Friedrichsen
    October 2, 2020

    As an industry we continuously forget what we have learned

    The continuous amnesia issue
    ============================
    In this post I want to discuss an issue that I, being for a longer
    time in IT meanwhile, observe over and over again. It is the
    observation that as an industry we continuously forget what we have
    learned.

    What do I mean with that claim?

    The very first discussion--again and again and ... ==================================================
    Probably I best illustrate this by sharing an experience I had. About
    two years ago I attended an unconference. It was not the first time I attended it. I liked it a lot. It always had a very energetic
    atmosphere. The participants were very active, loved to share and
    discuss. But unlike the previous times, I decided to do something
    different that year.

    As an experiment, I decided not to share myself, not to offer
    sessions myself where I drive the topic of discussion, but to listen
    only. I know that this is not the idea of an unconference, but I was
    curious. As I wrote: It was a little experiment, I wanted to conduct.

    I knew that always a very active group of people gathered at this unconference and I wanted to use that as an unbiased opportunity to
    learn about the state of IT, how people think about topics, what
    moves them, and so on. So, I looked forward to what I would learn.

    To be frank, it was a devastating experience for me.

    The session that really killed it was a session about reusability. A
    group of people came together to discuss reusability. I was really
    curious as I dealt with the topic for many years already. A great
    community. A topic I am particularly interested in. I was looking
    forward to learning something new. I did not expect a lot of new
    ideas, but maybe one or two.

    So, I listened ... and could not believe what I heard.

    The discussion moved at a level as if nobody ever had said or written
    a single word about reusability in the past 50 years. I felt set back
    to a pre-1968 discussion, set back to a time before the NATO Software Engineering Conferences were held. Where had all the ideas about
    reusability from the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and all the years
    after gone?

    Obviously, nobody in the room ever had heard anything about what we
    as an industry already had figured out about reusability. They
    discussed the topic completely from scratch, and due to that in a
    totally naive way, not touching any of the important learning of the
    last 50 years. I sat there listening and did not understand what
    happened. I felt the urge to jump up and scream: "Shut up, all of
    you! You do not know sh*t about reusability!"

    Of course, I did not. Besides the fact that it would have been very
    rude, it also would have been unfair.

    As I wrote before: It was a very active community that gathered
    there, all of them adding with their best intentions to a vibrant
    discussion. So, I eventually decided to leave. Not all sessions felt
    as devastating as this one but I had similar experiences in most of
    the sessions I attended.

    I was quite confused and had a lot to ponder. I went to the
    conference to learn something new and ... well, I learned something
    new. But it was definitely not what I expected to learn. I learned
    that the people in the sessions I attended did not seem to have any
    knowledge about the discussions that we had before in our industry
    about the very topics.

    Continuous collective amnesia
    =============================
    What happened? It kept me a while thinking. Eventually, I realized
    that I had observed a disease of our whole industry in its purest
    form: We continuously forget what we have learned. We always reinvent everything from scratch. My personal observation is that discussions
    in the IT community start over about every 5 years [1]. That is how
    long we remember as a community. After that we need to rediscover
    your insights from scratch.

    Or how I like to phrase it in a bit provocative way:

    In IT, we suffer from continuous collective amnesia and we are even
    proud of it! [2]

    Again, this is not about the people who discussed in that room. All
    of them did their best, they eagerly discussed hoping to gather new
    insights. They were simply victims of a widespread disease in IT:

    We do not value the wisdom of the past.

    We suffer from extreme youth obsession, not only regarding the age of
    people but also regarding how we value knowledge. Old knowledge is
    considered "worthless", while new knowledge is considered "great".

    A tweet that Mark, founder of Bitmen Studios sent me in a little
    conversion we had via Twitter IMO really nicely describes the
    effect:

    My point here is rather not searching for a unique "best" solution
    but everywhere software devs across the globe are solving the
    "same" problem again and again (and fall into the same pitfalls).
    The increase in tech needed and the associated complexity amplifies
    that problem.

    We reinvent the wheel over and over again, making the same mistakes
    again and again, not learning as a community. And as Mark correctly
    pointed out, the growing technology complexity amplifies the
    problem--and, as I would like to add, vice versa: Our continuous
    collective amnesia amplifies our growing complexity problem.

    Why is it this way? Why do we loose our collective memory every
    5 years?

    I am not sure about the causes. My current attempt of an explanation
    consists of 5 factors:

    1. We consider ourselves a dynamic, fast moving industry. New
    concepts, tools and technologies emerge every day. How can
    knowledge of yesterday still be applicable to problems of today?
    That is what we keep telling ourselves. We wallow in our perceived
    vigor and speed of innovation, neglecting that we keep solving the
    same problems over and over again, just with different tools and
    technologies. Yes, some things change, but usually 80%+ of the
    problems stay the same. But we refuse to see that. We prefer
    considering ourselves the "masters of new".

    2. We are technology believers. We are convinced that we can solve
    any problem by simply applying the right tool or technology. E.g.,
    if people have a collaboration problem, the typical reflex is to
    look for a tool that solves the problem, neglecting that it almost
    certainly is not a tool problem. The same is true for all other
    kinds of problems. Whenever we face a non-trivial problem, we try
    to solve it by applying a tool or technology to it instead of
    solving the actual problem. This has become such a natural pattern
    that we do not realize it anymore. And as past tools and
    technologies did not solve the problem, we look for new ones.

    3. Insights grow slower than knowledge. Our knowledge continuously
    grows, the longer we work in IT. Of course, not everything we
    learn is valuable. Quite often we learn that some of our knowledge
    is plain crap. If I, e.g., think back to SOA: Wow, what a crap!
    Would never do it again this way! But not everything was bad. I
    also took some great insights from the SOA times. It takes times
    to separate the wheat from the chaff. In the beginning of our
    careers we basically learn new stuff all the time. It takes some
    years until we start to see the recurring patterns, to separate
    real insights from plain knowledge.

    4. We face a continuous stream of new developers. I feel as if I face
    a new generation of developers every 5 years [3]. Maybe that is a
    very subjective experience. But for me, people just coming from
    their IT education, being 5 years in business, 10 years or 15
    years and more feel very different, like different generations.
    All those new people in IT have to build their own insights from
    scratch. They have nothing to build on as in IT we created a
    cult(ure) of new, celebrating the new and despising the old.

    5. If you combine the "cult of new" with what I call "the arrogance
    of the youth", you get an explosive mixture. Before you think that
    I want to talk bad about younger people: I just talk from personal
    experience. I was a graduate myself years ago and believe me: I
    was arrogant! I knew better! I had to learn humbleness the hard
    way, and I am still not sure if I arrived (it is a lot easier to
    judge an old self than to judge the current self). So, I do not
    want to reproach any young person for being somewhat arrogant. I
    guess that is natural and also healthy to a certain degree because
    it helps against persisting in outdated ideas as an industry. But
    in a culture of new, this habit works as an unhealthy accelerant.

    If we put these factors together, we end up with an environment where
    we only value new things and despise old things. If we face a
    problem, we never look if someone solved the same problem before [4].
    We only look for a shiny new solution, ideally a new tool or
    technology. If we learn a good solution for a problem, we forget it
    after a few years and start again from scratch.

    It is not that individuals do not learn and do not grow insights.
    They do.

    But as a community, we do not.

    Unlike other engineering disciplines, we do not create our body of
    knowledge, foster our timeless insights, work to extract the essence
    from the solutions we found yesterday and make it available to the
    community of today. We do not only not create a body of knowledge, we
    despise it. We always look to the horizon hoping to spot a silver
    bullet (which does not exist as we know) instead of looking back once
    in a while and trying to learn from the wisdom of our ancestors.

    Moving on
    =========
    This is what I observe all the time. Again, this does not mean that I
    do not meet individuals who act differently. But in general, I see
    the same discussions recurring again and again about every 5 years.

    To be honest, I do not have an actual idea how to change this. This
    cult of new is so deeply embedded in our culture and self-perception
    that it would take a long time and effort to change it.

    Personally, I try to share some of the old wisdom, e.g., with my talk "Excavating the knowledge of the ancestors". There is also the
    "Papers We Love" movement that tries to share such knowledge.

    But overall this is just a drop in the ocean. It would require a
    radical rethinking to stop our continuous collective amnesia. We
    would need to accept that most of our problems are not new, but that
    most of the times we solve the same problems again and again, just
    with different technology.

    But until we learn this, I am afraid we are not yet an engineering discipline, but rather a bunch of people obsessed with "new", not
    learning.

    As so often, there would be a lot more to write. But I leave it here.
    I hope I gave you something to ponder.

    And maybe you will come up with a great idea how to change it. If you
    have one, please share it! We need it--more desperately than most
    people are aware of ...

    [1]
    Maybe it is 7 years, maybe just 4 years, depending on the topic. But
    if you are long enough in this industry, you start to get these
    deja-vu feelings more and more often.

    [2]
    I explain the "we are even proud of it" part a bit further down the
    post. Basically it means that we celebrate ourselves for being so "innovative" and "fast moving", using it as a welcome excuse to
    ignore everything we could learn from the past.

    [3]
    I have seen charts that claim the number of software engineers
    doubles every 5 years. As I do not know the source of these charts, I
    cannot tell if they are right or wrong. Yet, any level of growth
    would leave us with more inexperienced engineers than experienced
    engineers at any point in time which would amplify the "lack of
    actual insights" effect.

    [4]
    I do not talk about coding tips shared on platforms like Stack
    Overflow. I talk about more fundamental problems like, e.g., the aforementioned reusability, its benefits and risks, when to use it,
    when to avoid it, what you need to consider, etc. I talk about the
    insights that outlast technology waves.

    From: <https://www.ufried.com/blog/continuous_amnesia_issue/>


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kerr-Mudd, John@21:1/5 to nospam@example.net on Tue Apr 16 21:34:09 2024
    On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:51:21 +0200
    D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

    I agree. Many have been the tims when the tiniest company with the tiniest application has insisted on moving it over to k8s, when a regular VM with
    a classic LAMP-stack (or equivalent) would have done a better and more reliable job, for a vastly lower price.

    But oh no, everything has to be k8s these days, even if the service only
    has 10 local users that just use a web frontend to enter data in a
    database.

    On Mon, 15 Apr 2024, Ben Collver wrote:

    The Continuous Amnesia Issue
    ============================
    by Uwe Friedrichsen
    October 2, 2020
    [Massive Snip]

    From: <https://www.ufried.com/blog/continuous_amnesia_issue/>



    We haven't even learned how top-posting is bad.



    --
    Bah, and indeed Humbug.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Javier@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 16 22:25:48 2024
    5. If you combine the "cult of new" with what I call "the arrogance
    of the youth", you get an explosive mixture. Before you think that
    I want to talk bad about younger people: I just talk from personal
    experience. I was a graduate myself years ago and believe me: I
    was arrogant! I knew better! I had to learn humbleness the hard
    way, and I am still not sure if I arrived (it is a lot easier to
    judge an old self than to judge the current self). So, I do not
    want to reproach any young person for being somewhat arrogant. I
    guess that is natural and also healthy to a certain degree because
    it helps against persisting in outdated ideas as an industry. But
    in a culture of new, this habit works as an unhealthy accelerant.

    We actually live in gerontocratic societies and the power of young people
    is just an illusion. Age of US congressists[*] is a good evidence of that. Young people are just being used by soft power to agressively market
    new technologies. What it is truth however, is that they enjoy playing
    their part at the stage, and they are even convinced of it themselves.
    Lennart is a paradigmatic example.

    [*] https://blog.datawrapper.de/age-of-us-senators-charts/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to Ben Collver on Tue Apr 16 23:12:04 2024
    Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> wrote or quoted:
    Obviously, nobody in the room ever had heard anything about what we
    as an industry already had figured out about reusability.

    The whole spiel about "the industry" here is just Uwe's two
    cents on a specific conference where they didn't vet the
    attendees' qualifications beforehand - you know, like they
    do with some PhD seminars.

    Over at CppCon, they've got these "Back to the Basics" talks where
    it's crystal clear they're catering to the newbies without a clue.

    Conferences can really run the gamut in terms of quality - a lot
    of the time, they're just a cash grab, and they don't want to
    scare off the paying punters with any educational prerequisites.

    Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead thinking "Alright, time
    to pony up and hit up a conference to learn a thing or two."
    Nah, I'd know from the get-go that whatever I pick up there
    ain't gonna offset the opportunity cost of showing up.

    Sounds like Uwe had a different take on it . . .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Ben Collver on Wed Apr 17 03:21:12 2024
    On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:34:53 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote:

    The discussion moved at a level as if nobody ever had said or written a single word about reusability in the past 50 years.

    That’s because most of that 50 years was spent talking about it, not
    actually doing it.

    I think the problem is pretty much solved now. Open Source has become the established way to develop most parts of the software stack (except
    perhaps the most specialized bits at the top). And code reuse follows very naturally from the ability to share, modify and redistribute other
    people’s code.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Wed Apr 17 09:04:51 2024
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
    Ben Collver wrote:
    The discussion moved at a level as if nobody ever had said or written a
    single word about reusability in the past 50 years.

    That’s because most of that 50 years was spent talking about it, not actually doing it.

    The quoted blog is very vague about what the author thinks is being ignored/forgotten.

    He refers to a NATO conference, and the reports are online:
    - http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/brian.randell/NATO/nato1968.PDF
    - http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/brian.randell/NATO/nato1969.PDF

    A cursory search finds only a couple of remarks about re-use.

    - First an observation (nato1969.PDF p19) that re-using code in
    different environments would benefit from automation to adapt to new
    environments, which is very much not forgotten, I can think of
    multiple examples that fit: (i) compiler platform definitions, (ii)
    configure scripts (iii) hardware probing/enumeration by OS kernels.

    - Second (p29) an observation that modules must be “isolated in an
    envelope” and encourage economical reuse of existing
    constructs. Again, examples are easy to see: (i) shared libraries (ii)
    class and modules in a wide a range of languages (iii) anything with a
    network-addressable API.

    I think the problem is pretty much solved now. Open Source has become
    the established way to develop most parts of the software stack
    (except perhaps the most specialized bits at the top). And code reuse
    follows very naturally from the ability to share, modify and
    redistribute other people’s code.

    Indeed. And we’re a long way into finding out the downsides too - vulnerabilities arising from dependencies, supply chain attacks, etc.

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Wed Apr 17 13:12:37 2024
    Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
    A cursory search finds only a couple of remarks about re-use.

    A modern software dev gotta know the skinny on reusability.
    Here's the lowdown:

    - Focus on crankin' out top-notch, well-abstracted, and
    well-documented reusable software goodies (code, designs,
    specs, the whole nine yards)

    - Make sure them reusable components are loosely coupled and
    can be tweaked to fit different contexts

    - Set up them organizational processes and incentives
    that'll reward and grease the wheels of reuse

    - Invest in some serious testing, version control, and
    security checks for them reused components - gotta keep
    'em squeaky clean

    - Prioritize that modular, clean, and maintainable code
    design to set the stage for future reuse

    - Leverage them design patterns, architecture principles,
    and software frameworks

    - Gotta work across teams and projects to develop them
    widely-accepted, high-quality reusable resources

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to Stefan Ram on Wed Apr 17 14:37:15 2024
    ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote or quoted:
    - Leverage them design patterns, architecture principles,
    and software frameworks

    The "Open-Closed Principle" is really ticklin' my fancy here.

    The idea is that software entities should be open for extension,
    but closed for modification.

    But then you got Uncle Bob comin' in with his two cents,
    sayin' that procedural software is a cinch to tack on more
    verbs (procedures/functions), but a real headache when it
    comes to addin' new data types. Flip that around, and you got
    object-oriented software - a piece of cake for the data types,
    but a real bear when you wanna slap on some new verbs (method
    names).

    Now, I know what you're all thinkin' - "Stefan, you're really
    speakin' my language here, but what the heck do you mean by
    'open for extension, but closed for modification'?"

    Well, let me break it down for ya: Imagine you got this ol' software
    program, right? And you wanna add some new bells and whistles to
    it, but you don't wanna go messin' with the core guts of the thing.

    That's where the "open for extension" part comes in - you wanna make
    it easy to tack on new features without havin' to rip the whole darn
    thing apart.

    But then you got the "closed for modification" bit - you don't want
    just any ol' Tom, Dick, or Harry comin' in and start tweakin' the
    fundamental workings of your software. That's a one-way ticket to
    Bugsville, my friends.

    So, in a nutshell, you wanna make your software flexible enough
    to grow and evolve, but sturdy enough to keep the foundation
    intact. Kinda like building a house - you want the walls to
    be strong and sturdy, but the decor and layout should be easy to
    change up as your needs evolve.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stefan Ram@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Wed Apr 17 14:58:31 2024
    Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:
    He refers to a NATO conference, and the reports are online:

    Back in '68 and '69, these were the days when the "software crisis"
    was the talk of the town - you know, the whole deal about how dang
    hard it was to write code that actually worked and made sense.

    Now, these early NATO shindigs really put the spotlight on
    the potential upsides of reusing software. We're talking
    about boosting quality and productivity, y'all.

    The logic was simple - if you use parts that have already been
    tested, you're less likely to end up with a steaming pile of
    bugs. Sounds like a no-brainer, right?

    But hold your horses, because there were some downsides to this
    whole software reuse thing. Turns out you gotta be real careful when
    picking out those pre-made parts, and you might need to shell out
    some cash for training and whatnot to get 'em integrated just right.

    So in a nutshell, the early NATO software shindigs recognized
    the potential perks of reusing software, but they also knew
    there were some hurdles to overcome. These conferences helped
    cement software reuse as a key concept in the world of software
    engineering, warts and all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Collver@21:1/5 to Richard Kettlewell on Wed Apr 17 15:19:25 2024
    On 2024-04-17, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    The quoted blog is very vague about what the author thinks is being ignored/forgotten.

    I don't know what specifically the author is referring to, but i have
    heard retired professionals talk about technical advertising and
    announcements of innovations, and having responses like "That's not
    new! We were doing that decades ago using _____!" I've heard it so
    frequently that it lends credibility, in my mind, to this article.

    I've also heard of marketing churn where vendors are continually
    bundling and unbundling their product lines, and the market has
    enthusiasm for this shell game, as though it had never been seen
    before.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Kettlewell@21:1/5 to Ben Collver on Wed Apr 17 17:40:39 2024
    Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes:
    On 2024-04-17, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    The quoted blog is very vague about what the author thinks is being
    ignored/forgotten.

    I don't know what specifically the author is referring to, but i have
    heard retired professionals talk about technical advertising and announcements of innovations, and having responses like "That's not
    new! We were doing that decades ago using _____!" I've heard it so frequently that it lends credibility, in my mind, to this article.

    Selling the old as new is, well, an old tactic; I don’t think there’s
    many conclusions to be drawn from it about the underlying balance
    between learning and reinvention.

    --
    https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Stefan Ram on Wed Apr 17 22:04:32 2024
    On 17 Apr 2024 14:37:15 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:

    The idea is that software entities should be open for extension, but
    closed for modification.

    They didn’t have good version control in those days, did they?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Javier on Thu Apr 18 01:42:22 2024
    On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 22:25:48 +0000, Javier wrote:

    We actually live in gerontocratic societies and the power of young
    people is just an illusion. Age of US congressists[*] is a good
    evidence of that.

    That’s a US-centric thing, symptomatic of your dysfunctional democracy.
    Most of the world is not like that.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to John on Thu Apr 18 01:43:29 2024
    On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:34:09 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

    We haven't even learned how top-posting is bad.

    I like to repurpose lawyer jokes to make the point. E.g.

    A: A Rolls seats six.
    Q: What’s the saddest thing about seeing a Rolls with five top posters go
    off a cliff?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Thu Apr 18 11:03:52 2024
    This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
    while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

    Brilliant!

    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:34:09 +0100, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

    We haven't even learned how top-posting is bad.

    I like to repurpose lawyer jokes to make the point. E.g.

    A: A Rolls seats six.
    Q: What’s the saddest thing about seeing a Rolls with five top posters go off a cliff?


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Thu Apr 18 22:17:41 2024
    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:

    Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
    senior political office ...

    They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
    though.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Fri Apr 19 10:42:23 2024
    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:

    Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
    senior political office ...

    They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
    though.


    And lower on freedom.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 19 09:28:04 2024
    On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:42:23 +0200, D wrote:

    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:

    Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
    senior political office ...

    They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
    though.

    And lower on freedom.

    Some countries which score higher on press freedom than the USA: Taiwan,
    Tonga, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa, Namibia, Timor-Leste.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Alfter@21:1/5 to ldo@nz.invalid on Fri Apr 19 17:21:08 2024
    In article <uvs665$2g9b9$7@dont-email.me>,
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:

    Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
    senior political office ...

    They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
    though.

    Thing is, we're not actually a democracy...or, at least, we're not supposed
    to be. The founding fathers were rightly terrified at the prospect of democracy, and set up a a republican form of government instead.

    You could argue that we have devolved over the past 237 years into something bearing a greater resemblance to democracy than to the republic that we were promised. I would be inclined to agree with such an assessment.

    --
    _/_
    / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
    (IIGS( https://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
    \_^_/ >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Lawrence D'Oliveiro on Fri Apr 19 22:22:23 2024
    On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:42:23 +0200, D wrote:

    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:

    Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
    senior political office ...

    They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
    though.

    And lower on freedom.

    Some countries which score higher on press freedom than the USA: Taiwan, Tonga, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa, Namibia, Timor-Leste.


    Who cares about press freedom? I say, bring on the fiscal freedom baby! Everything else is just a fig leaf for slavery.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Scott Alfter on Fri Apr 19 22:02:29 2024
    On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:21:08 GMT, Scott Alfter wrote:

    In article <uvs665$2g9b9$7@dont-email.me>,
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:

    Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
    senior political office ...

    They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does, >>though.

    Thing is, we're not actually a democracy...or, at least, we're not
    supposed to be.

    So much for being the “leader of the Free World”, eh ...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Pozharski@21:1/5 to Ben Collver on Sat Apr 20 16:19:33 2024
    with <slrnv1rafb.3l3.bencollver@svadhyaya.localdomain> Ben Collver wrote:

    *SKIP* [ 2 lines 1 level deep]
    by Uwe Friedrichsen October 2, 2020

    Sure thing, topic should be discussed with whoever started it. Not
    going to happen, I guess.

    *SKIP* [ 72 lines 1 level deep]

    What happened? It kept me a while thinking. Eventually, I realized
    that I had observed a disease of our whole industry in its purest
    form: We continuously forget what we have learned. We always reinvent everything from scratch. My personal observation is that discussions
    in the IT community start over about every 5 years [1]. That is how
    long we remember as a community. After that we need to rediscover your insights from scratch.

    One thing must be made prominent: People who fancy cons is not
    representative sample of The Cheap Laborforce of The Industry. With
    this notion I conclude that people who fall in this slot tend to burn
    out in five years (for whatever reasons). But that's OK, they are
    promptly replaced with new ones.

    *CUT* [164 lines 2 levels deep]

    --
    Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
    Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to nospam@example.net on Sat Apr 20 21:15:48 2024
    In article <7c490eda-e041-8cdd-5bcf-5b886a32f65f@example.net>,
    D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:

    Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
    senior political office ...

    They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
    though.

    And lower on freedom.

    Depends. If you look at the total percentage of population currently incarcerated, the US is an order of magnitude higher than any European
    country.

    On the other hand, the US does have some interesting protections that
    most European countries don't have. That's mostly not a problem there,
    but situations can be imagined where it might become one.

    It really is interesting seeing how much Americans are just plain afraid
    of things in ways that Europeans aren't.
    --scott

    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Dave Yeo on Sat Apr 20 22:42:05 2024
    On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:05:31 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:

    Didn't your declaration of independence start out with all men are
    equal?

    Remember, the authors of that were mostly slave owners. By “men” they
    meant “white men”. They didn’t mean “nonwhites” and they didn’t mean
    “women”.

    It was a “democracy” in the original, Athenian sense. Not the way it is understood in actual democracies these days.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to Dave Yeo on Sun Apr 21 02:13:11 2024
    On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 16:50:44 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 22:05:31 -0700, Dave Yeo wrote:

    Didn't your declaration of independence start out with all men are
    equal?

    Remember, the authors of that were mostly slave owners. By “men” they
    meant “white men”. They didn’t mean “nonwhites” and they didn’t mean
    “women”.

    It was a “democracy” in the original, Athenian sense. Not the way it is >> understood in actual democracies these days.

    You mean where slaves had rights, a course to citizenship and could buy
    their freedom, as well being protected from violence by the State? Also
    not a racial thing.

    OK, the Dumbfuckistani Founding Fathers missed that bit. ;)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to Scott Dorsey on Sun Apr 21 12:24:49 2024
    On Sat, 20 Apr 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

    In article <7c490eda-e041-8cdd-5bcf-5b886a32f65f@example.net>,
    D <nospam@example.net> wrote:

    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 11:03:26 +0200, D wrote:

    Do note that in europe the fashion du jour is to appoint children to
    senior political office ...

    They tend to score higher on measures of democracy than the US does,
    though.

    And lower on freedom.

    Depends. If you look at the total percentage of population currently incarcerated, the US is an order of magnitude higher than any European country.

    Oh how I would wish that europe in general, and sweden in particular, had
    more people incarcerated. Shootings and bombings by criminal immigrant
    gangs is sky rocketing in sweden and the police has lost control
    completely.

    On the other hand, the US does have some interesting protections that
    most European countries don't have. That's mostly not a problem there,
    but situations can be imagined where it might become one.

    It really is interesting seeing how much Americans are just plain afraid
    of things in ways that Europeans aren't.

    And the reverse I'd say. many europeans have trouble sleeping due to
    Donald Trump and americans being allowed to own guns.

    --scott



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Scott Dorsey@21:1/5 to ldo@nz.invalid on Sun Apr 21 15:29:10 2024
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:34:53 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote:

    The discussion moved at a level as if nobody ever had said or written a
    single word about reusability in the past 50 years.

    That’s because most of that 50 years was spent talking about it, not >actually doing it.

    In the eighties, everybody was talking about code reuse and how it would
    be the future and how all of our problems would go away.

    Not we have people throwing together code that consists entirely of library calls without actually understanding what those library calls are really doing.

    I think the problem is pretty much solved now. Open Source has become the >established way to develop most parts of the software stack (except
    perhaps the most specialized bits at the top). And code reuse follows very >naturally from the ability to share, modify and redistribute other
    people’s code.

    There isn't enough modification and redistribution. We need to add two numbers, so why not just link in this giant math library?
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eric Pozharski@21:1/5 to Ben Collver on Tue Apr 23 06:24:46 2024
    with <slrnv1rafb.3l3.bencollver@svadhyaya.localdomain> Ben Collver wrote:

    *SKIP* [ 2 lines 1 level deep]
    by Uwe Friedrichsen October 2, 2020

    Sure thing, topic should be discussed with whoever started it. Not
    going to happen, I guess.

    *SKIP* [ 72 lines 1 level deep]

    What happened? It kept me a while thinking. Eventually, I realized
    that I had observed a disease of our whole industry in its purest
    form: We continuously forget what we have learned. We always reinvent everything from scratch. My personal observation is that discussions
    in the IT community start over about every 5 years [1]. That is how
    long we remember as a community. After that we need to rediscover your insights from scratch.

    One thing must be made prominent: People who fancy cons are not
    representative sample of The Cheap Laborforce of The Industry. With
    this notion I conclude that people who fall in this slot tend to burn
    out in five years (for whatever reasons). But that's OK, they are
    promptly replaced with new ones.

    *CUT* [164 lines 2 levels deep]

    --
    Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
    Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)