Am 27.04.20 um 19:32 schrieb Ben Franksen:
Am 27.04.20 um 17:34 schrieb Joachim Durchholz:
Am 27.04.20 um 12:55 schrieb Ben Franksen:
This very much differs from how I view the /result/ of the work: here I regard everything that has not been done in a clean and orderly fashion as deficient. (And that goes for software, too, especially if it is mature.)
Sure, but how do you judge that work if you're not an expert? With old-style cars, you could inspect the machinery, even if you weren't fully educated you could see if there was grime in the gears or not. With today's cars and their electronics, and today's millions-of-lines software, that kind of check has become impossible.
Which is why I dislike modern cars. If I ever happen to buy another one in my lifetime it will be an oldtimer.
And that's the rub: you won't get a silent, safer, low-emission car, you'll be stuck with louder, unsafe, high-emission choices. And building and maintaining a car that has all of these things and still isn't beyond the pay grade of most people is simply beyond what a grubby mechanic could do, or a layman could understand. Too complicated, too complex. I agree that much of the non-repairability modern cars is just lock-in, not by necessity. That's where the analogy breaks down: some things in software are too complicated for the casual user by necessity. Though... it's not that much of a break-down actually: Some OS vendors are indeed known for their persistent attempts to lock their users in, and making stuff needlessly complicated to that end.