The history of programming is devs frustrated at arbitrary limitations of syntax or modelling and forming new ones, with their own arbitrary limitations of syntax or modelling.
When your only tool is a FOR loop hammer, every set based operation frustratingly looks less like a nail than a screw.
Chicken and egg, perhaps? OOO lives and breathes state, so complexity (defined as an excess of state consideration) seems a natural pairing, yet the overhead and complexity is increased by each in response to the necessity of the other? That is, when complexity of the problem shifts, there is a parallel increase in the complexity of the OOO solution.
The general anxiety of the movement towards functional or procedural programming in general might also be a feature of age: a young programmer eager to impress that they can juggle 8 balls effortlessly, but called upon to do the same 15 years later might admit 3 balls sufficed to begin with, and is closer to an attainable sustainable solution.
I asked Spector about his 'immersive simulations' comment some years back:
"I just prefer games that are less puzzle oriented or "single-solution" oriented and games that offer deeper simulations. Simulations allow players to explore not just a space but a "possibility space." They can make their own fun... tell their own stories... solve problems the way they want and see the consequences of their choices."
Maybe precursors to todays sandbox game environments then.
People bought into the seductive lie of fairness is what happened, even when the sentiment was the opposite.
Compare "blood is thicker than water", which was rooted in the opposite conclusion, that the blood of the covenant is thicker than water of the womb, i.e. your relationships and social bonds outcompete genetic ties.
The failing of meritocracy is that it is tautological; those who succeed did so because they must have been successful. It can't bear scrutiny because, as it turns out, we can have neither fair nor equal grounds for competition (if we're measuring results as comparative, which is the case here), but people secretly desire unfairness as long as there's a chance they will benefit, even if they are not the beneficiary of a given instance or result. See monarchies, lotteries, CEO pay discrepancies, etc... what matters is there was an arbitrary chance you're dealt out at the top.
>* The IT community, despite the majority being some form of an intellectual
That's your first error. Any trade can encompass a swath of subjects and nuances from history to technology, niche technique and even underlying mathematics thousands of years old, including those that built the floor your chair is on right now, but you'd probably drive by a construction site thinking the mouth breathers are right where big brother market sorted their 'intellect' to.
Surprised this wasn't posted, as it mirrors most of the findings (closed vs open mind; how to optimize creative/unstressed thought, methodologies for maximizing output), John Cleese's talk on Creativity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb5oIIPO62g
Here's a free method that's twice as much work but produces great results:
immediately after composing, for each step and nested step, write a line or two of what its place in the code is for. Write it as though the code is broken and you're following the imaginary line threading through, explained as if to your rubber duck.
Then, having written out the business logic map, look at each written step and see if they're just a description of the logic "iterates through file, passes hits onto nextFunc" and you can safely delete those. They're just glue, really, holding processes together.
What you'll have left is skeletal comments that are restricted to "we did this because this stackoverflow post gave the solution" as well as those mental maps of the solution in your head, which is really what comments are for, future programmers to grok your state of mind and thus better implement their code changes.
That should likewise account for variations in rate of learning, since you can't predict what prior knowledge they possess of the subject matter.
If the rate is consistent, there must be more than existing knowledge bases, or there would be clear staggered tiers or leapfrogging reflecting different accumulative advantage.
Read Blue Ocean by Kim & Mauborgne. What is "really good" is that what shortens the distance between the problem of the consumer and the solution.
As an example, audiophiles might sneer at consumers buying "cheap" "digital" "crap" instead of having the good sense to appreciate what a high end speaker or vinyl system is capable of, but those consumers aren't upstream, they're trying to solve the issue of needing a sound system. People in the industry are for the most part audiophiles, so they're going to have an appreciation for things their consumer base is basically illiterate in. Still, the business is run on solving problems, and the problems of most are not the problems of the high-end user.
we're solving problems, or solving really hard problems, but either way can't deceive ourselves if we're just trying to solve the problem of making ourselves money, or actually of providing value to a variable population of problem-havers.
Mostly to keep up a digital backlog to rival the stack of books next to my desk.
Occasionally for reference in searching as they're sorted by topic and google search has steadily become wrestling with the algorithm for relevant results.
Externalities and cost savings.