Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

nah, when you're constrained enough, you rarely to never sacrifice anything in the name of future changes. You figure out what needs to be done, then you write a program that does it. If it needs to change, you write a new program. Part of why that's not as bad as it sound is exactly because of those constraints, you're not dealing with megabytes of source code.

There are lots of problems that are specific and simple enough to solve, that it's easier to write a C program from scratch, than it is to find, install and then learn how to do it with some existing package... The same concept goes for programs.. At a certain scale, it's not worth the extra infrastructure/overhead/rigidity/complexity that it takes to write software that's optimized for change.

That said, today, in 2022, it's more or less the opposite, codebases are huge enough that most of software "engineering" is about plumbing together existing libraries, and at that scale, it's an entirely different thing.



No, not even given the historic context this makes any sense.

We're not talking about embedded software with special constrains here!

This story is about mundane enterprise software.

Nothing in the story justified this insane level of over-engineering and premature optimization.

Just using the "optimizing compiler" was deemed "good enough" for all other needs of the company, likely…

Also nobody asked for that over-"optimized" throw-it-away-and-start-over-if-you-need-to-amend-anything-crap.

I have still this warmth nostalgia feeling when looking at this story, but when thinking about it with quite some experience in real world software engineering I'm very sure that this kind of programmer would be one of the worst hires you could probably run into.

Finding any valid excuses for "write-only" code is hard, very hard. This was also true back in the days this story plays.

Sorry for destroying your nostalgia feeling, but please try to look at it from a professional perspective.


I'm pretty sure a card dealing game is rarely considered mundane enterprise software..


Wasn't it a marketing gimmick? At least that's my understanding.

Otherwise it makes no sens. Computers back than where very expensive. You wouldn't use them for anything that wouldn't yield income in some way.

It quite clearly wasn't a "computer game" in today's meaning.

I would call "marketing support software" indeed "mundane enterprise software".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: