A software epiphany | Hacker News Reader

A software epiphany

johnwhiles.com

121 pointsjwhiles107 comments

Title is a bit overblown for the actual epiphany which is more about the necessity of programmers having a robust mental model of a system to be able to maintain, let alone improve the system. I don't see anything particularly unique to software in this thesis, as complex physical systems also have the same characteristic.

I also think this is way off base:

> It means that the code base we create is not the true product of our work. The real product is the mental theory of that code base which

This is manifestly not the case. The value of computers is that you can write code once, and the computer can execute it repeatedly ad infinitum. As a programmer, your mental theory of the code base has value to its owners, but it's not the product. The code base is also not the product. The product is whatever output is created and consumed by the relevant stakeholders.

> As a programmer, your mental theory of the code base has value to its owners, but it's not the product

If you lost all of the code today, with the right understanding you could build it again relatively quickly. If you lost all that understanding, say all the developers quit, the program will no longer be adapted to customer needs potentially for years until that understanding is rebuilt.

I agree that "product" is probably not the right word, probably "asset" fits better. Losing that knowledge is like losing a manufacturing plant for your product. The plant isn't the product but it's a key asset for producing the product.

This is a great point.

At a micro level, this helps articulate why rewriting/refactoring a feature just after writing the first version of it is so quick, relatively. And why it is often easier to write better code in a second pass. The first time you had to build the theory AND the code at the same time. In subsequent passes, you have the benefit of the theory from the start.

I think this concept is self-evident to most experienced engineers, but I have not heard quite as succinct an articulation of it before.

> If you lost all of the code today, with the right understanding you could build it again relatively quickly

Yes, but it has nothing to do with the codebase. There are 10,000 ways of building the same product with entirely different codebases.

Building the same product with a different codebase is virtually guaranteed to be a disaster. This is the famous "second system effect."

Sometimes the original coders are the only people who know, not only how the software works, but even what it does. Unknown uses include features discovered by users but unknown to the makers, and one-off hacks created to serve a valuable customer.

> Building the same product with a different codebase is virtually guaranteed to be a disaster.

There is no point in going back and forth over this unless you have a real world example.

> This is the famous "second system effect."

[1] I believe you've misunderstood this effect. My understanding is that in the "second system effect", the succeeding system is not the "same" as the original

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect

Sure, but deviation from a known path introduces more risk. Every different technical choice at the very least may introduce unforeseen incompatibilities with previous "knowns".

But you might argue the fact that most software is always adding features and changes is because it really is never a perfect representation of some target theory. In that case, the theory inside the heads of each person behind the software may even be incomplete compared to some perfect representation, and the work done by a company in the user/feature iteration cycle is the process of reconciling the drift between each of them towards some shared theory.

I don't think it's uncommon for parts of the theory already enshrined in implementation to be forgotten to time as it passes, if it's not regularly revisited and cogitated on.

That's an interesting point. My thought is that the theories of the software go well beyond programmers to everyone who interacts with the business process in question. Everyones theories are incomplete and aspirational though, sort of like a dream, while the code executing is the cold hard reality. Programmers have the closest theory to reality, sort of like a lucid dreamer, but even those with the deepest expertise are still subject to the deterministic outputs of code execution in production.

It misses two points.

One is that software development is collective. On any non-trivial project, it's impossible for one person to understand the entire problem domain or the entire code base.

What's being called a theory here is also collective. It's the current combined understanding of a group of people.

The other point is that code is persistent. If it's finished and the developer who created it is fired (for example, for lying to the board) it will carry on working, because the understanding it contains has been automated.

The code only needs to be understood when it needs to be changed or reinvented. And changes can often be handled with partial understanding.

The more partial the understanding the more it's likely to lead to bugs. But sometimes it can also fix bugs which the original developer included - refining the automated understanding instead of making it worse.

So... I'm not at all convinced by the OP.

Seems like the author independently discovered the concept of conceptual integrity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month#Concept...

That reminds me of a comment on HN that I had to bookmark when I read it:

> Some processes try to break conceptual integrity. Micro services are one but Scrum as practiced usually tries to stick people into a blind valley where the horizon is months out rather than years. That leads to bad minmaxing behaviors, and/or covert channels being used to keep the wheels on.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33923682

Every world changing realization can look trivial from the other side. Understanding that people who don't have the amount of experience we have in our domain need to go through their own internal theory building process is both why it is so rare to find good teachers and what this epiphany is about.

> The value of computers is that you can write code once, and the computer can execute it repeatedly ad infinitum.

Until something changes and you need someone with a sound theory of the system to work out in a timely manner why it stopped working and how to get it working again. Bonus points for figuring out that this will happen again and that "running code" is not the product, the ability to keep the system running and evolving by changing code efficiently is.

yeah. far from well-understood.

have a look at Phillip Armour's "The Laws of Software Process: A New Model for the Production and Management of Software, 2003" it talks about Software as knowledge medium, and effects thereof.. an attempt to put them things with their legs down, not up.

... software is not a product but a medium for storing knowledge, and software development is not a product-producing activity, it is a knowledge-acquiring activity.

... the real job is not writing the code, or even building the system - it is acquiring the necessary knowledge to build the system... Code is simply a by-product of this activity. The problem arises when we think the code, rather than the knowledge in the code, is the product.

... When we use models and mindsets that are rigid and deterministic to manage an activity that is fluid and variable, it is not surprising that people get disappointed.

and a consequence:

"... for the most part, (software) engineers do not _know_ how to build the systems they are trying to build; it's their job to _find_ out how to do it." i.e. programmers must be able to learn (and teach) - should learn that and/or be taught to it. All else are tools supporting that activity.

> ... the real job is not writing the code, or even building the system - it is acquiring the necessary knowledge to build the system... Code is simply a by-product of this activity. The problem arises when we think the code, rather than the knowledge in the code, is the product.

Absolutely true.

It is also true of all other disciplines of Engineering. The difference with Software Engineering seems to be that there are no Physical/Natural laws/constants to inform the Programmer of explicit boundaries/limitations and hence a stopping point.

> ...The value of computers is that you can write code once, and the computer can execute it repeatedly ad infinitum.

until, of course, someone updates a library that your code depends on or the OS changes the way it executes code or some other arbitrary change happens and your code is broken forever.

> Title is a bit overblown for the actual epiphany

Ok, let's use that word above since the article uses it as well.

> The paper also talks about what happens when all the people who have a theory of a given program stop working on it. It dies. Yikes. It’s claimed that we can’t rebuild a theory from code and documentation.

In the text above word "theory" are used instead of "understanding". Not sure why. Anyway, what exactly the hell Im doing in the last 10 years supporting legacy system mostly without documentation...

> when all the people who have a theory of a given program stop working on it. It dies.

This is only true of software of a particular level of complexity. For the most part, it simply isn't true. Humans made it (who also would routinely forget details about their own project) and humans can understanding it enough to build a working theory. If you can perform tests for something, you can deduce what it's doing, although the business case of why or specific experience with other approaches resulting in failures is often not recoverable by deduction.

As I understand you mean that author used word "theory" instead of "intention"?

Why, why they used word "theory" in the first place?

The word "theory" is used because an essential aspect of this particular kind of understanding is that it lets you reason about the domain and the code's behavior. It's an apt term in that context.

While it's true that systems tend to be documented poorly, I think the article downplays the value of good documentation. Good docs describe everything that went into the system, from business requirements to implementation details, including things that were tried and abandoned (either because they didn't work or because business requirements changed), including code changes (e.g. "changed from DB table to in-memory array for speed; may need to change back if array grows too large").

This historical documentation, including historical codebase (think Git repo), is highly valuable. True, a new developer without the institutional knowledge is at a disadvantage, but that's the entire point of good code and good docs: so the next devs can pick up as efficiently as possible if/when they're called in.

I’m not the author, but my sense was that the word theory was being used because it was it couldn’t be explained fully. An “understanding” would instead but potentially full known and documented or made into an API, etc. This theory idea is to hint that there are even bigger ideas than can’t be written and you have to feel them and learn them from the original team to use them well yourself.

I’d love to hear from the original author how they think theory compares to a mental model. The biggest different is theories are known to be wrong, which fascinates me as an idea!

I have seen many pieces of code only make sense for a moment in time. The theory was right then, but wrong as the business evolved. Or sometimes visa-versa where the business was wrong, but the code worked beautifully for it.

I think he perhaps means the difference between your 10 years of building an understanding vs writing the entire thing yourself?

You've been re-building the theory in your mind for the last 10 years. A better word for theory (I would propose) is mental model. In fact, as soon as your mental model of the system is complete enough, you might as well re-implement it. It will be easier to understand and maintain.

The author uses the general meaning of the word and not the now-popular subset meaning: scientific theory.

The “software as theory” idea is helpful - thanks OP. Right now I’m dealing with some devilishly difficult GPU code, and I now understand that I’ve been working to reverse engineer the authors’ theory from their code. With much effort, I achieved a gratifying epiphany, and the code suddenly became clear! (Perhaps I developed a theory related to but not identical to that of the original authors.) Fortunately, I have an enlightened manager, and he was patient with the “theory building” process. Software degrades to garbage when a series of successive developers apply changes to it without a cogent theory. The process is self-reinforcing; the more degraded it becomes, the harder it is to develop a useful and accurate theory.

“ The process is self-reinforcing; the more degraded it becomes, the harder it is to develop a useful and accurate theory.” This is a really good point I think.

It feels like the Sprint / Agile practices that a lot of us use lead us to value expediency more than anything. So we'll try and find the quickest way to make a change that gets an existing program to do what we want. If we lack a working theory of the codebase that usually means we're doing something that runs counter to the overall design. And then over time everything gets worse and harder.

Hello! I wrote this article.

I want to say something about the pop-ups, which to have been much more discussed than what I wrote. (UX disaster as engagement bait?)

My desire in showing was to make the site feel more “alive” and to make the reader aware that other people had been there. I was trying to build a vibe of website as public space. Clearly this was not an approach that handles hacker news traffic and attitudes very well.

Secondly, I wanted to make readers aware of how much data is visible about them just from visiting a website.

I wanted it to feel like when you land on a drop shipping site that occasionaly tells you “Alice in Norwich just bought a widget. They're selling fast!”. You slowly realise that the data is real, and that the site actually can see where you live, who provides your internet. Etc. It was meant to be creepy.

Anyway, I've removed the feature now. It was clearly causing usability issues for some people, which was not what I intended. I'll think about other, better ways to get the effect that I had hoped for.

Finally, I'll say that it was at least interesting for me to see things like

“Someone else just connected to Johncom. They're in Kansas City, US, 64121 and are connecting with Spectrum”

“Someone else just connected to Johncom. They're in Cape Town, ZA, 8001 and are connecting with airmobile.co.za”

I got to learn about some new places, postcode formats, and ISPs.

Hello! Jimmy and I recorded the podcast.

I'm curious to read more of your thoughts on podcasting as a medium. I bet my goals & tastes in creating podcasts differ wildly from your goals & tastes in listening to them. And if I can be so bold: why give our show the time of day, but not something more tightly produced (which, perhaps, stands a better chance of offering high signal-to-noise)?

In any event, Jimmy and I appreciated your post. We're thrilled whenever someone digs in to a paper we've covered and finds it meaningful.

Hey!

I usually find it very hard to remain deeply engaged with a podcast. I'll be focused for a few minutes, then my focus will shift and only later will I realise that I've been passively listening - absorbing it as a form of ambience but not properly engaging with what's being said. I think this is probably true for most listeners, especially because podcasts are often used as a soundtrack for doing some other task.

When we are not fully engaged with audio I think just go along with whatever's being said. We ignore logical leaps, and then pick up the thread later. But we do, I think, remain aware of the presenter's affect towards whatever topic is being discussed.

So a lot of the time I think when we listen to a podcast all we are really taking away is “what the topic was” and a sense of whether that's a thing we should feel positive or negative about. We don't critically engage with what's being said and whether the conclusions being reached are valid.

That's a lot of waffling, but the point that I'm really trying to get to is that podcasts seem to be more a medium for transmitting vibes than for transmitting complex thought.

This would be fine if podcasts were all entertainment, but when a lot of them are about world affairs, or psychology, or whatever, then I think it leads to people listening to podcasts believing they are educating themselves but actually just absorbing memes (in the mgs2 sense) from the presenters.

So mostly I think that podcasts are just a way for people to start believing things without understanding why they believe them. The more “Produced” a podcast is, the worse this effect probably is. And people listen to them ALL THE TIME. There's probably never been a better medium for spreading disinformation. lol

ANYWAY

I really liked your podcast, and it does some things that I think alleviate the issues I have.

* It's complex enough that if I become disengaged I can't pick up the thread, so I end up just pausing / rewinding. * It's a conversation, and you as hosts don't agree a lot the time. You do some of the work of critical thinking for the listener. * The editing is very funny.

I originally gave your podcast the time of day because I was considering going to a future of coding meetup in London, and wanted to know what the vibe would be. The meetup sold out while I was listening :)

Sorry for the slow reply — I was ill. I appreciate your thoughts, and they largely capture how I feel about the medium too, though I'd argue that television is definitely the bigger thought-polluting opiate of the masses.

It's funny that you say "transmitting vibes" almost as though that's a bad thing. At least, I think the vibes are necessary, but not sufficient. I also, personally, think that "entertainment" gets short shrift, though nailing down why would take us on a tour through the sort of define art and the point of a game is to be fun, right? morass of culture literacy / criticism, and HN is definitely not the venue for that.

In any event, thank you for the blog post. It made for some spirited opening banter on our latest bonus episode. And hopefully you'll make it out to the next meetup. I don't live anywhere near London sadly, but I've seen the videos and some of the demos people show are delightful. I need scissors, 61.

For reference I think this probably partly explains my reluctance to use A.I. to help me code.

If I ask e.g. ChatGPT to just code something for me then the code it outputs is a black box, and there is no 'theory usage' in the parlance of the article. [Or I guess I'd have to recover the theory from the code it writes].

I've accepted by now that I'm putting myself at a disadvantage by not using A.I. at work however. Maybe another way to think about it would be that A.I. allows us to use our higher level theoretical understanding when we interact with codebase.

What seems to work quite well is, you ask the AI to build something that fulfills your requirements. Then you ask questions about the implementation until you understand it in detail. Meanwhile you ask it to improve portions of the code based on your insights and your results after trying it out. So the black box morphs into a mental model that the machine has helped you to attain.

ChatGPT provides a lot of the model through prompting to provide information of the "black box"

> The closest we can get to transferring a theory is to demonstrate the expression of the Theory to someone over and over again until they build their own theory. That theory won't be the same as ours.

This already has a term: "derived meaning". Derived meaning is what's actually created and stored in your head, and represents your particular brain's understanding of... something. It could be a thought, it could be a procedure, it could be a memory, it could be an emotion. But it can't be transferred to other brains; you can only hope that, by communication, you can reach some form of mutual understanding that at least fits the communication.

I appreciate the author explaining this.

I have had a Theory of what software is myself, mostly based on "Programming as Theory Building," but it is good to see it put into words.

I struggle to build "theory of mind," which means I can't read code written by other people.

This means I can't get or keep a software job, so it sucks.

At the same time, it is a superpower in personal projects because I can somehow document my own theory of mind. It's counterintuitive, but my inability to build a theory of mind about other people causes me to assume less about what they know, which translates into good Theory docs.

My best example is [1].

[1]: https://git.gavinhoward.com/gavin/bc/src/commit/22253a3a64db...

I had a look at [1]. I believe it is interesting but for me, this document is hard to understand.

The thing is imo, you have a theory of mind on which you build. This building is done in a very structured way and works well for you. I believe the gist is, you have premises, eg. values of a code base, and build further on that, layer by layer.

The OP explains a pain point with sofware engineering, which also applies here: a theory cannot be fully expressed. The code and documentation flows out of the theory, they are artefacts, products of it. Still those are not encompassing the theory in itself, which in fact only exists in the originator's mind.

The job of many sw engineers is to get insights into such theories by inspecting the code and documentation, using it and approaching these from different angles. A bit like archeology.

I agree, but sure as McDonald's fries are salty, I want to get better at passing the theory on.

When I launch my business, that will be an essential part of my product.

So can you give me specific feedback on that document?

You'll get a lot of out systems thinking then! Essentially the formalization of thinking in parts ("theories") and their interactions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking?useskin=vecto...

I had no idea I could just do useskin=vector to get the old look back. Thanks for that!

I found Donella Meadows' book insightful, but I only read it after I understand system thinking so I might be biased. I wonder how insightful vs confusing it is to people from different paradigms

I tried reading this but the pop ups are so annoying that I couldn’t get past the first paragraph.

Completely agree. I had to turn on iOS reader mode to tolerate it. But then it was very worthwhile.

If it becomes, or is deemed, necessary to have, or recover, a theory of an implementation of an automation, then you have already lost. What is necessary is the theory of the business. If you do not have that -- and practically no one has that -- then your automations are towers of guesswork, and there is no way to determine whether they are correct.

To me, programming is all about designing things in such a way that the "theory" (using this particular meaning of the world) mostly already exists.

I see a lot of programmers start with an idea, and then they implement it. I prefer at least a little bit of cargo cult approach.

I don't re I start researching what tools are already out there and what others do in similar cases before I have any more than a vague idea of what I want to do.

There's this seminal paper by Peter Naur called "Programming as Theory Building" that arrived at the exact same conclusion when it comes to programming:

https://gist.github.com/onlurking/fc5c81d18cfce9ff81bc968a7f...

Just in case anyone else misses it — the OP is a blog post about a podcast about this very paper.

I agree with the programming as theory building. Not an epiphany for me but it is something I realised for the last 20 years. I am however glad that other people can explain it better than myself. For another good explanation of this read “founders at work” where Steve Wozniak talks about how fast it is to develop when you keep all the code (theory) in your head

Just a quibble, but that usage of “theory” is entirely correct. Nevertheless the point is taken that often in general usage “theory” means “scientific theory.” Anyhow, with some small consideration it should be clear that the latter is merely a subset.

I find the relationship between software, code, computers and humans endlessly fascinating. The epistemological discussion here is incredible in both substance and in noticing how fast some people derail it into semantics.

If he replaced the word "theory" with "model" it would be much easier to understand the point.

(I think I'm the only on-topic comment so far.)

It's not quite the same. A model is something that you ought to be able to communicate. Theory is something internal, that you can't fully introspect, but you have and you use.

My definition of model would include the one in your mind, whether or not it may be communicated.

That is doubtless true for the type of people who frequent Hacker News (mostly computer programmers). But in some other communities, the word 'theory' is commonly used in the same manner as Gilbert Ryle uses it. The author of this article is apparently unaware of that fact.

I think the theory encompasses the software itself as an artifact and also the details not included in the software like the problem domain’s details which constrain the software but might not need to be included in the software explicitly.

The model of the software might only encompass the specific ways in which the software is written explicitly, in order to understand how it operates in a near vacuum.

You need a theory in order to reason about a model. The reasoning ability is the important part.

Replace theory with abstraction/mental model/concept and then the blog becomes quite obvious.

Yes, grokking code is hard, especially low level code where the WHAT to do is intertwined with the HOW.

Very interesting article, thank you for sharing your epiphany. The only thing missing was an attempt to come up with a better term than "theory" ;).

Nuked the notification stream with UBlock: `##section > ol`

It's an interesting observation on the reason behind something that's understood fairly well in management circles from its impact: Retention of software engineers is really important!!!

I never really had a conceptual model for the period in a project where I can't really effectively write code outside of exploratory exercises. Building a theory of the solution to a problem is absolutely the most difficult part of any project that I've worked on.

In brownfield projects I will usually start out with a manual linting pass. I read code deeply enough to understand it to a point where I feel like I can make delinting changes to it. This helps me build up a theory of the solution space that those who came before me, the act of delinting, commiting, and pushing stands as something of a mental proxy for having written the code myself.

Greenfield projects are much more difficult as you have to synthesize this theory from whole cloth rather than learn it by reading the musings of coders that came before. IMO, this is incredibly valuable as very few devs I've met have the capacity, even if they have the experience.

In many ways I think that past successes in founding companies is used as a proxy signal for this skill by investors when making a bet on a venture by tenured tech founders.

> Greenfield projects are much more difficult as you have to synthesize this theory from whole cloth

This is the reason why Domain knowledge (or access to a Domain expert) is so very important for Programmers. Without that knowledge you cannot build a "theory" and then map it to a "solution domain model".

Just for the sake of clarity, what do you mean by linting/delinting here?

What an incredibly annoying popup. Sorry, can't read that.

I'm guessing that it is just showing other people browsing the same site - which might be fun if it happens once in a while.

But having this on the HN frontpage, there are tons of visitors right now and this is indeed annoying.

It’s like the page design thinks the author’s content is less important than information about random visitors browsing the page. If your web design doesn’t consider the article to be worth reading, I’m not going to read it.

I feel the same about a lot of news sites that overlay the content with pop ups and ads and whatever. If the article isn’t even important to you, what am I doing here? I want my money back.

With ads and popups that want my email address, I can at least understand why someone would do it. There is a benefit to the site owner.

With this nonsense "someone in Timbuktu just connected" nobody benefits. It's just 100% annoying and dumb.

Firefox focus made it not so bad. One tab only.

I had to check out the site to see why everyone was complaining. I was thinking it can't be that bad.

It is that bad. I did not read the page.

Usually I don’t mind some whimsical features on a personal site, but this one is obnoxious and completely kills my desire to actually read the post (the subject of which had me intrigued).

Yes. I switched to reader mode but wish that agressive popup wouldn’t be there as it served no purpose

Holding out for "Suddenly I Understand UX" =)

I suspect this blog does not usually get much traffic.

Suddenly, you understand websites.

##section[aria-label="Notifications alt+T"]

Firefox reader view helps with that.

Well, this is a rare case of a professional-looking site rendered completely useless thanks to a single design decision made for no apparent reason at all.

For everyone talking about the notifications at the bottom:

After the page has loaded, use “reader mode” in your browser. Most browsers have this. That shows you only the text of the post, and not the notifications on the bottom.

Or, read a copy of it here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20231118211242/https://johnwhile...

People are refusing to read out of principle. We shouldn't have to work around a bad and annoying "feature" of a site.

I agree with you in general, but in this case it's worthwhile to work around the annoyance because the article makes a good point.

Too bad.

If you want to communicate that point to me, turn off epilepsy mode on your site. Perhaps my life will be worse for never knowing the point the author is making. Fine. My life is also, definitely better for not tolerating this kind of cancer.js. There are a lot of good articles out there I can read instead of this one that don’t try to punch me in the eyeballs.

I left and came here to see if I was the only one that couldn’t read it because the constant movement was too distracting. I’m not going back just to do work arounds for a problem that shouldn’t exist in the first place.

I had to disable NoScript on that site to see what is the feature you are talking about

Or don't read it, because why would I value the opinion of anyone who would implement such a feature?

Because he’s a person and people make mistakes or don’t think things through?

Maybe his theory of his software was that only a few people an hour might be likely to visit his site.

You should really just read the article, it’s short and good.

Top tip; I used my thumb to cover up the bottom part of my phone, which allowed me to read it!

I expect that 99% of the time it's a perfectly fun little pop up, but right now with the post on HN it is amazingly annoying

I did that for about 4 seconds. Then reconsidered, and decided such a user hostile website wasn’t worth my time or attention and I left. It’s not my job to make the website usable.

Seems like a self-limiting attitude. It's a good article, and there are several easy ways to get around the UI issue.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to manually tweak every website you come across before it's usable.

As is your right.

Most of us power through small inconveniences as a normal part of life, calculating that it is not worth missing out on potentially valuable information/experiences/people/work/etc simply on the principle of not being mildly inconvenienced.

And this is a VERY mild inconvenience.

Eh. There is so much good content around, why waste my time reading and encouraging user hostile content? Pushing myself through inconveniences like this carries a tang of self abandonment.

Visually filtering this stuff out is really exhausting for me. I have the mental energy to read one article with buzzy BS, or maybe 3 other articles which might be just as good or better and respect my attention. I must admit - I didn’t think of reader mode. But by the time I started holding my thumb over the bottom of the screen, overwhelm had already started to set in a little. I was frustrated and the seeds of hatred had sprouted in my heart for the author. “Mildly inconvenienced” my arse.

It’s Sunday and I choose to enjoy my life. Somehow I think I’ll survive not reading this one particular article. At least not today, Satan.

Browser "reader mode" is your friend

Look the popup is bad, but consider he probably usually gets way less visitors, so in testing it’s probably not that bad for him. Maybe a few per article usually, but with hacker news it blows up.

Let’s not roast the guy too much, we’re all human and like cool stuff. This would be cool with a little more work, I think.

Also, the article is great. It puts together a definition for the theory of what software is in a succinct way. Software is code, but any specific software is an artifact of the theories in the developers brains. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Disagree. Writing a blog post is like getting on stage. You need to come on stage with a dream that you’re going to dazzle the audience with your show. Your blog is so interesting that it’s worth the time to read it!

If you doubt yourself so much that you think some gimmicky notifications are more interesting than the article, you’ve lost me as an audience. Why even have the content if you believe someone from Texas being on the page too is more interesting than what you wrote? If you think that, just make that. Don’t invite me to a show then halfway through interrupt your own show with something else. The idea alone gives me adhd. Stop it.

> You need to come on stage with a dream that you’re going to dazzle the audience with your show. ... If you doubt yourself so much that you think some gimmicky notifications are more interesting than the article, you’ve lost me as an audience.

I'm sorry, I just have to laugh at the self-seriousness of this and the other negative takes in this thread.

It's a quirky little "fun" feature that shows the location of other people viewing the site, implemented on a personal blog. If you have a blog that gets a few dozen views a day, it could be neat. If you get the HN hug of death, it's extremely annoying.

The author made a mistake, but it's a minor one, and I think it hardly betrays the self doubt you seem to be reading into it. It's not like it's an auto-playing video ad.

It's a good article. I suggest powering through to use the reading mode of your browser.

I got here, read the comment threads and thought, "Why is everyone going against HN guidelines to toss out low effort comments about the site design? How bad can it be?"

Then I went to the page. So distracting. I just closed it and agree with everyone else. I'd recommend the author get rid of that.

Good outline of the idea of theory building. I especially appreciated that the author has added a feature to scare off simpletons.

This is actually a great article even though the popups are terrible and I found the first sentence very off-putting.

What the heck are all the notifications on this site?

I gave up reading the article, due to how distracting that is.

You might understand software, but you clearly don't understand web design.

Made with PartyKit if anyone wants to make their own :P

https://www.partykit.io

what in the world is going on at the bottom of the site, it’s crazy distracting.

Suddenly, I hate software

Made me seasick.

OP, I bet that popup is turning away traffic

Copyright law protects computer programs as the expression of an idea. One idea has many expressions. If you want to modify or extend it, you need to know the idea.

  [webpage text follows]

Even though I don't respect podcasts as an information delivery system, I recently listened to a podcast that felt like having an epiphany.

The podcast in question was episode 61 of Future of Coding. It is essentially a read-through/review of two papers with which I was unfamiliar, but which I believe are actually quite famous and influential.

Why did listening to this feel like an epiphany? Well, I suddenly felt like I understood what the deal is with software. Why is it that when you join a company, the engineer who's been there for years seems like an incredible genius? Why do some teams that I've been on struggle while others manage to get everything right? Why is everyone always so keen to rewrite things?

The two ideas that the podcast expresses are:

    The concept of what a “Theory” is, according to Gilbert Ryle.
    That being a programmer is doing “Building theories” in the Ryle sense of the word.

Having these two ideas explained together was really helpful. If I had read Ryle by himself, I would have thought, “interesting and useless”. If I had read Programming as Theory Building without knowing the theory concept, I would just not have understood.

I recommend listening to the podcast and reading the paper. But if you don't want to do that, I'm going to try and explain the two points.

strange What is a Theory, According to Gilbert Ryle?

When Ryle says theory, he doesn't mean anything like what other people mean when they say theory. Annoying. He should have just come up with a new word. What he means is the thought object that exists in our minds which allows us to do things.

I, for example, know how to cook pasta. When I cook pasta, that's a certain expression of this knowledge. When I try and explain to you how to cook pasta, that's a different expression of it. Neither of those expressions contains everything I know about cooking pasta. And in fact, there are parts of what I know that I can't really express in any way. This knowledge is what Ryle would call a theory. I have a “Theory of how to cook pasta”. This theory is not something that exists in language or action - it’s a something that we can never fully express. The closest we can get to transferring a theory is to demonstrate the expression of the Theory to someone over and over again until they build their own theory. That theory won't be the same as ours. What Does it Mean that Programming is Theory Building?

It means that the code base we create is not the true product of our work. The real product is the mental theory of that code base which:

    Allowed us to create it in the first place.
    Allows us to diagnose problems with it and fix them.
    Allows us to modify it easily.

If I think about times when I've worked on a team that works well and gets stuff done, it's been a team where:

    Someone has been there for a long time, since the start of whatever code base/feature we work on.
    Other team members have joined slowly, and had a chance to work with the people who know more.
    The area of focus does not change. We haven't been reassigned to a random existing project, or asked to fix some other team’s work.

The paper also talks about what happens when all the people who have a theory of a given program stop working on it. It dies. Yikes. It’s claimed that we can’t rebuild a theory from code and documentation.

This model explains a few curious phenomena:

    What “legacy code” actually is - it’s a code base which is no longer maintained by people who have a theory of it.
    The solo engineer who can make a better product than a team of equally competent professionals. The solo engineer has spent the time to build a complete theory of their program, the professionals move between projects regularly - and only have theories of what they've worked on.
    Why getting up to speed with unfamiliar projects is so much harder than just rebuilding the thing. To truly build a theory, you need to mentally rebuild the existing code base anyway.

Holy crap, I tried to read this article but could not get over the constant motion in the corner. Can you please add a way to suppress this?

Epilepsy warning.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com