Tech Lead/Team Lead. Senior WebDev.
Intermediate Grade on Computer Systems-
High Grade on Web Application Development-
MBA (+Marketing+HHRR).
Studied a bit of law, economics and design
Location
Spain
Education
Higher Level Education Certificate on Web Application Development
An analogy covers conceptual similarities between the noun and the original "something", I catch your analogy with the tractor and your reasons, but software isn't moving anywhere, it's hosted quietly on a place, distributed or not and it's structure is more solid than you ensure. You can't change the framework, language or hosting easily, it's a hard job that takes time and sometimes it's near impossible.
I can bet on your point of view on a little project but on a big one things are not that soft "as is", that's the reason to be of micro services and their architecture and patterns that makes this theoretical building to become a city of little buildings, each one with it's responsibilities, which is more accurate (now thinking on a bunch of little tractors as comparison I remembered this scene of Cars and I'm laughing my ass off: youtube.com/watch?v=HF0s-pXOHck)
Oh and... nope. Software is not alive, it's a product made by developers, just like a handmade chair, nothing special into it.
Tech Lead/Team Lead. Senior WebDev.
Intermediate Grade on Computer Systems-
High Grade on Web Application Development-
MBA (+Marketing+HHRR).
Studied a bit of law, economics and design
Location
Spain
Education
Higher Level Education Certificate on Web Application Development
The “building”-like software perception leads to the idea of a hard thing, something static. That vision has been coined a long ago, and consolidated in the 90’s, when you got “final” releases that shouldn’t change. Any changes would come in the next releases.
Google and Ericsson, among others, realised the software is “soft”, it can grow and change anytime, like a living being – the perpetual beta.
That vision has changed the way we look to software, taking it away from the building-like.
Tech Lead/Team Lead. Senior WebDev.
Intermediate Grade on Computer Systems-
High Grade on Web Application Development-
MBA (+Marketing+HHRR).
Studied a bit of law, economics and design
Location
Spain
Education
Higher Level Education Certificate on Web Application Development
It's a good point, I keep seeing it as building-like but just like a separate concepts on structure and interior design, I'll reflect about that later :)
// , “It is not so important to be serious as it is to be serious about the important things. The monkey wears an expression of seriousness... but the monkey is serious because he itches."(No/No)
The “building”-like software perception leads to the idea of a hard thing, something static. That vision has been coined a long ago, and consolidated in the 90’s, when you got “final” releases that shouldn’t change. Any changes would come in the next releases.
I've argued against this persistent Taylorism in the software world almost endlessly, at all levels.
Do you have any sources for when this was consolidated in the 1990s?
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I disagree with your opinion. Buildings are static rocks, Software are alive and soft. There’s no analogy.
Yet your voice is welcome. 😉
An analogy covers conceptual similarities between the noun and the original "something", I catch your analogy with the tractor and your reasons, but software isn't moving anywhere, it's hosted quietly on a place, distributed or not and it's structure is more solid than you ensure. You can't change the framework, language or hosting easily, it's a hard job that takes time and sometimes it's near impossible.
I can bet on your point of view on a little project but on a big one things are not that soft "as is", that's the reason to be of micro services and their architecture and patterns that makes this theoretical building to become a city of little buildings, each one with it's responsibilities, which is more accurate (now thinking on a bunch of little tractors as comparison I remembered this scene of Cars and I'm laughing my ass off: youtube.com/watch?v=HF0s-pXOHck)
Oh and... nope. Software is not alive, it's a product made by developers, just like a handmade chair, nothing special into it.
Well… “software isn’t moving anywhere” is not a crossed bridge… ¯\_㋡_/¯
And I thought the “conceptual similarities” was clear in my text, if it’s not, I apologise.
About your “betting,” I “bet” I’ve been through a lot of “big projects” in my career, and they endorse my point.
I would like to understand the origin of your point of view, why do you say software is "alive" and "soft"?
OK, that’s a very good point!
The “building”-like software perception leads to the idea of a hard thing, something static. That vision has been coined a long ago, and consolidated in the 90’s, when you got “final” releases that shouldn’t change. Any changes would come in the next releases.
Google and Ericsson, among others, realised the software is “soft”, it can grow and change anytime, like a living being – the perpetual beta.
That vision has changed the way we look to software, taking it away from the building-like.
It's a good point, I keep seeing it as building-like but just like a separate concepts on structure and interior design, I'll reflect about that later :)
I've argued against this persistent Taylorism in the software world almost endlessly, at all levels.
Do you have any sources for when this was consolidated in the 1990s?