←back to thread

1070 points dondraper36 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hiAndrewQuinn ◴[] No.45068713[source]
On the meta level, the simplest thing that could possibly work is usually paying someone else to do it.

Alas, you do not have infinite money. But you can earn money by becoming this person for other people.

The catch 22 is most people aren't going to hire the guy who bills himself as the guy who does the simplest thing that could possibly work. It turns out the complexities actually are often there for good reason. It's much more valuable to pay someone who has the ability to trade simplicity off for other desirable things.

replies(1): >>45069021 #
switchbak ◴[] No.45069021[source]
If I was running a business and I could hire someone that I knew did good work, and did the simplest thing that could possibly work (and it actually worked!) - then I would absolutely do that as soon as possible.

"It turns out the complexities actually are often there for good reason" - if they're necessary, then it gets folded into the "could possibly work" part.

The vast majority of complexities I've seen in my career did not have to be there. But then you run into Chesterton's Fence - if you're going to remove something you think is unnecessary complexity, you better be damn sure you're right.

The real question is how AI tooling is going to change this. Will the AI be smart enough to realize the unnecessary bits, or are you just going to layer increasingly more levels of crap on top? My bet is it's mostly the latter, for quite a long time.

replies(1): >>45069096 #
1. ChefboyOG ◴[] No.45069096[source]
"Will the AI be smart enough to realize the unnecessary bits, or are you just going to layer increasingly more levels of crap on top? My bet is it's mostly the latter, for quite a long time."

Dev cycles will feel no different to anyone working on a legacy product, in that case.