• BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    You’re both correct, and also wrong.

    A lot of code already exists. Or at least in a close enough form that it can be easily adjusted to address a new situation.

    When someone comes up with an idea for a new App at this point, it’s almost never because it’s an entirely new branch of computing. It’s very likely just CRUD with a visual design, and then a small more complex algorithm to mix the data around behind the scenes.

    What’s the difference between a dating app and an automatic meal plan builder? The algorithm doesn’t care about whether or not the recipe swiped back when it matches it up to you.

    You’re right that they’re not going to be inventing entirely new things most of the time, that’s just not what’s needed of them most of the time.

    • luciole (they/them)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Fortunately software is much more than App ideas fishing for VC investments. A lot of us are building actual tools for nurses, teachers, technicians, artists, students, etc. We have to analyze these human beings’ role in society, their needs, their situation, which is different from merely preying on their attention span. Programming languages are still the most reliable way to specify how the software must behave. And once the software is done, it is merely born. It then lives through a steady flow of continuous adaptation until one day it dies as all things do. Downplaying the human condition is a mistake.

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        A medicine dispenser application for a nurse is still just CRUD operations for the most part. There’s nothing innovative about how the code would be written in an application like that.