The ME and EE associated with creating new product like the Nest Thermostat (for example) are, by comparison with something like Grubhub, of trivial engineering complexity (although still very respectable engineering efforts)
I’m gonna go with Carmack on this one; you think you have a better understanding of it than him? It’s just ifs and for loops.
Sure some contexts require real nuance. But just because Grubhub IS massive doesn’t mean it needs to be engineered that way, that’s a byproduct of socio-political forces (money).
There’s nothing in any science or engineering book I’ve read that says “all software must be engineered as a large distributed application”. Again, a byproduct of contemporary business goals.
My generative art object app is not sending people to the moon and merely relied on me wrapping some well understood math in machine language syntax; it’s librarian work.
Your preference for adverbs and emphasis where you see fit to place it does not move me.
Accomplish something net new for humans, cause I’ve been sending data grams over the internet since the 80s. Grubhub isn’t all that interesting
On that front, the idea that software systems with 100s of features, millions of daily users, extreme uptime requirements, hackers all over the world trying to break in daily , and billions of $$ on the line is "ifs and for loops" or "librarian work" is... oh come on. Never mind, this conversation is silly.
You say you are an experienced developer, but honestly it sounds like you've never built anything except generative art object apps.
What exactly is massively complicated about a predatory aggregator site compared to a vehicle?
I have.
> Let go of your desire to shit on developers
So you're a psychic now, and you read into people's desires by looking at HN posts?
The question remains. But it's clear you can't answer it without ad hominem.
It's a perfectly valid question: what makes an aggregator site like GrubHub a more complex engineering problem than a vehicle?
> maybe it isn't the best comparison, maybe I should have been more specific.
May be it is, may be you should have been, but you weren't
> The point you are asking about in no way affects my larger point so who cares
What is your larger point exactly? That "having a CI" somehow make you an engineer because your software is somehow "more complex than a vehicle"?
> You harping on it is just weird.
The fact that you answered literally nothing, and keep sticking to ad hominem attacks show that you have no substance to what you're saying.
Also, guess what? The web telescope has a ton of software on it. I suppose that is just "software engineering"? (in quotes, har har)
Look, there are terrible teams doing terrible or very simplistic software work. The same is true in all engineering disciplines and it is of course true that in all engineering disciplines (including software) there are also teams operating with a high degree of passion and rigor in creating very complex things. So yeah, please stop with these silly and really pretty insulting comments.