the article assumes monster codebases because we can build them. but cheaper code also means cheaper rewrites. maybe the future is disposable software, not carefully reviewed software.
If you read the article carefully -- I've dealt with an alternative scenario as well -- where we may have smaller codebases with larger blast radius.
As to disposable software, it's harder to get traction/adaption when things constantly break or are slow or the experience is crappy in general.
To make it simpler - all else being equal - as a user would you prefer using highly reviewed/vetted/reliable software, or otherwise?
My bet is reliability is an invariant -- nobody wishes for software that crashes, leaks your private info, gives faulty output, is laggy to use and so on.
atomicnature|11 days ago
As to disposable software, it's harder to get traction/adaption when things constantly break or are slow or the experience is crappy in general.
To make it simpler - all else being equal - as a user would you prefer using highly reviewed/vetted/reliable software, or otherwise?
My bet is reliability is an invariant -- nobody wishes for software that crashes, leaks your private info, gives faulty output, is laggy to use and so on.