We are still early with the cloud
&gt; <i>I&#x27;m excited for a world where a normal software developer doesn&#x27;t need to know about...</i><p>I&#x27;m not excited for this. There&#x27;s a quote I cannot find that I miss greatly, but maybe a Whitehead quote or some such about Civilization being measured by that which it doesn&#x27;t have to think about, that which it takes for granted. It&#x27;s always struck me as powerful, but giving ourselves the ability to forget &amp; un-learn does not tempt me in development. We are the builders, and this great rich pool of possibilities is rarely improved with merely forgetting &amp; becoming an exclusively higher-level operator. Depth is deeply rewarding in development.<p>Let&#x27;s talk about the cloud some, &amp; this pool of capabilities we are so delightfully placed at the helm of, and the cloud&#x27;s influence on these capabilities.<p>&gt; <i>Somewhat ironically, software development is one of a vanishingly small subset of knowledge jobs for which the main work tool hasn&#x27;t moved to the cloud. We still write code locally, thus we&#x27;re constrained to things that work in the same way both locally and in the cloud. Thus, adapter tools like Docker.</i><p>It&#x27;s super hard for me to imagine a replacement, not because replacements won&#x27;t be great, but because replacements will have a hard time becoming core knowledge for the software development world.<p>(It&#x27;s problematic because great openness let us roam too freely unboundedly but,) one of the greatest glories of software development is how unboundedly open &amp; downright democratic it is. We use software until it stops serving us well, and then we either roll up our sleeves, dive in &amp; improve it, or start something else entirely. But we can keep drawing from the same pool, from the many many possibilities &amp; ideas which all interrelate &amp; support each other, to shape new ideas &amp; give life to new forms.<p>The authors premise, to me, feels like a proposition that we will be so well served the cloud that we can just leave where we are behind. This is about not needing the pool of knowledge or capabilities we have, the systems we have, because we&#x27;ll be working somewhere else.<p>In many ways though, that to me sounds like declaring that the future is different, therefore we need a new primordial soup to start from. &#x27;Using only ATCG for genetics is a paradigm that must be eclipsed!&#x27;<p>But you know what? Someone builds that new place. And in 98% of cases, the same old fundamentals &amp; tools are still at play, underneath the new tools, underneath the new abstraction. Larry Wall (in Perl is the first post-modern language) would say: the truth is our systems will always be post-modern. Modernity&#x27;s shining image of itself as brilliant sprung from nothing novelty is rarely true. New ideas more often than not creative re-applications and re-mixed of old materials.<p>Rather than simply say that a new paradigm is probably not so new, I think there&#x27;s a deeper challenge, which is: how does a new paradigm ever rise to such a height that it becomes well known? How do we adopt a new paradigm &amp; start teaching it &amp; using it? How does it become the next thing?<p>We are very well served by the cloud. It&#x27;s presence as a system of services, as far off, maintained-by-other-people, no-longer-our-problem miracle working wondermachine is all true &amp; very well reported and it is coming for everything and everyone doing work today.<p>But I&#x27;m not at all afraid, because, in 99.99% of cases, these vast neo-mainframes have no way to pass on their genetics. They are alone and isolated and developers cannot get into their bowels. There is no &quot;The Midnight Computer Wiring Society&quot; of the cloud, and there never can be and there never will be because the cloud until the PC and the tools we have here is about control &amp; orchestration &amp; order &amp; rules, and there&#x27;s no <i>permission</i> in the cloud to go develop your own culture, to become a new wave, to change everything for everyone (including the other devs) because you are just one lone neo-mainframe, just a couple of your own ideas that you&#x27;re calling your paradigm &amp; building your cloud by, but in a huge number of cases your ability to interact with talk with share with other people also doing cloud or to enable other people to try to cloud like you do is exceedingly small. Clouds are all unique and alone &amp; they have a much harder time spreading <i>socially.</i><p>How does a new cloudy paradigm ever get the ball rolling? What are it&#x27;s central tenants &amp; beliefs that make it a flexible, malleable, swiss-army knife where all developers everywhere have even more power &amp; creativity- not just at building applications atop it but enhancing &amp; growing &amp; exploring the platform as well? I do think eventually we will find new things to make core, to form real communities &amp; new shared basis upon (I think Kubernetes&#x27; apiserver+controller paradigm is probably a core construct in the future, for example). There&#x27;s early early signs we are civilizing what so many hyper &amp; not so scale cloud technologies have frontiersed. (But oh it&#x27;s so early, and it&#x27;s at so much more depth where this happens than the shallow &#x27;your workflow will be replaced&#x27; message of this article).<p>I think there&#x27;s a lot of good peering into the mid-horizon to do, that the attempt to peer forwards are good, &amp; commend this article. It&#x27;s right to ask (sic):<p>&gt; <i>Rethinking these abstractions to be native to the new world let&#x27;s us start over and redefine the abstractions for what we need?</i>
re else of note).<p>But I highly doubt we will really get release&#x2F;escape from the past. The article tries to question the past 50 years, and I think perhaps yes we might diminish it, it might not be at the forefront forever. But I have a hard time imagining enough real value or enough real difference- even if we switch to Zircon or KataOS or Zephyr or Genode or the next thing, I tend to think most existing abstractions will largely remain, perhaps mutated some, some more prevalent than others, and that the view will not really end up looking that very different. Platform will continue, yes changing, but also in many ways similar.<p>The above all speaks to a fairly slow-building evolutionary view of the future. That said, I think we really dropped the ball on trying to bring software development online, have really had a shitty unambitious maxima we&#x27;ve been stuck at.  We still write a crap ton of code that&#x27;s just driving http clients. gRPC is still deeply one process talking to one service, a very convenient way to still manually write individual send(call)&#x2F;receive(return) calls&#x2F;streams. Cap&#x27;n&#x27;Proto dared to dream a little more multi-service, to follow somewhat after E-language, but never materialized 3-plus-way communication.<p>The long hangover after CORBA and SOAP blew out &amp; got eaten by simple-is-better ReST has turned into a forgetting, to not trying. The idea of finding new abstractions is interesting, actually (contrary to first part of my rant), but programming language design has remained so focused within the language that we don&#x27;t have the creativity to expose &amp; play earnestly with the abstractions we have. Language design has focused near exclusively on building better processes, and without integrative cross-system rework, without a much higher scope of change desired. We&#x27;re just shuffling the cards again and again with the same base system; it&#x27;s all different syntax spins, different ergonomics, maybe a new safety guarantee (and boy are people excited about that!) but all the same underlying patterns, variously cloaked. A dull post-modernism. If there is change, real change, I think it comes from going back &amp; re-trying an E-lang or an Erlang, or more generally working aggressively towards multi-system. And much of that could just be taking what we do inside processes &amp; doing it on the web&#x2F;net. I ask myself regularly, and alas, I haven&#x27;t gotten around to fucking around and finding out: what would a EcmaScript&#x2F;JavaScript Promise look like, but on the web? This kind of primitive material makes total sense to developers, but we don&#x27;t really express these things in systems ways; there&#x27;s the inner process world, &amp; outer systems world, and it&#x27;s not abstractions we need per se: we just need to tear down the veil between these two realms. The process already has the materials to make a great cloud, we just haven&#x27;t opened the box yet.