I think Casey is currently the most informed person to make a series of books or articles summarizing the history of SW Engineering, all the lessons learned and forgotten, and all the good stuff that was published and still hasn't gained traction in the practice
Ehh I love Casey and have learned a ton by watching how he thinks about things in his handmade hero series, but he is fairly narrow minded in his views of dev. Not that theres anything wrong with that, for the kinds of dev he does his approach is very good. But its not generalizable.
I suppose it is a matter of what one works on, but that has been consistent in my career.
I have seen many be rewarded for choosing what I would deem intentional, gross negligence. But hey, those devs get work finished faster, and that's all that matters to the non-technical folks.
How is this relevant? I didn't say he should make a book about his teachings about SWE, I said he could compile a comprehensive review of the foundational literature of compsci
You think there aren't other people equally or more qualified? I mean Casey may be the most visible person with those qualifications - but lack of visibility doesn't imply lack of competence, plenty of brilliant people work in the background..
Feel free to point to anyone doing these deep dives that specifically tackle the lost knowledge of the early decades of computer science and the ideas that have not yet come to fruition despite being extremely old
> Feel free to point to anyone doing these deep dives
Most of this kind of content comes off as relevant/topical but mindless entertainment. This is not a "deep dive" of anything that I could practically apply in my daily work. It feels good to think this content might add value and then to subsequently consume it, but it's effectively junk food.
I used to spend a lot of time watching crap like lex and primagen before it became obvious that these kinds of information channels are not meaningfully enriching despite sounding like they should be to a casual observer.
You are making many assumptions. First of all, he is doing the deep dives by researching all those articles, and of course the resulting presentation will be very superficial. The point is exactly to publish a book to allow the reader to partake in the deep dive.
Secondly, nobody said anything about applying that stuff to your daily work.
As much as I like to watch Casey, Prime, etc. on YouTube, they are not going to teach anybody anything. They are just entertainment for software people with a certain viewpoint.
He's entertaining and well spoken. Love it. Not sure the book medium would be the best avenue. My own sweet spot is presentations, live interviews and meetings. I can't write for sh*t, even if I tried. I know.
Like I agree with most everything he says and I like to optimise my own software, but for my day to day jobs and contracts it's simply not feasible.
That level of performance and rigor is not what is demanded nor paid or appreciated.
E.g. in Enterprise circles it's still OOP from top to bottom.
Mixed with a tad more functional style due to varying adoption of that paradigm in the languages used by enterprise.
But low level optimizations are not interesting to these customers at all, even though they could help them with some problems.
I suppose it is a matter of what one works on, but that has been consistent in my career.
I have seen many be rewarded for choosing what I would deem intentional, gross negligence. But hey, those devs get work finished faster, and that's all that matters to the non-technical folks.
Most of this kind of content comes off as relevant/topical but mindless entertainment. This is not a "deep dive" of anything that I could practically apply in my daily work. It feels good to think this content might add value and then to subsequently consume it, but it's effectively junk food.
I used to spend a lot of time watching crap like lex and primagen before it became obvious that these kinds of information channels are not meaningfully enriching despite sounding like they should be to a casual observer.
this person, of course their presentations is super simple.
you - i suspect you are sophist and like other sophists