On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:36:11 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
<seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:32:09 +0400
Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
20-May-2013 23:41, Adam Wilson пишет:
>
> Absolutely, but my point is that some of those are entire fields of
> study and bodies of knowledge that can take years or decades a too
> acquire.
I believe this is a fallacy as given the current pace of progress
people can then no longer hope to become experts anymore ;)
(Or at least in anything even remotely actual). A year or 2 is more
then enough to get to the state of the art, and amount of experience
is not proportional to inventing something new (and advancing the
field).
With only a brief, cursory understanding of the current
state-of-the-art, any attempts to "advance the field" automatically
carry a high risk of *regression* under the false guise of advancement.
And I strongly believe that's already been happening *a lot* over the
past decade. Wheels are being reinvented, only this time most of them
are squares.
Well arguably that regression in markup based UI was WPF. They made a lot
of mistakes that to this day murder performance and the markup is pretty
bulky. But they've gone backed and fixed a lot of the perf and markup
issues with WinRT, and I am seeing some better markups in newer toolkits
that look like they learned from WPF. But arguably HTML/CSS was the first,
and IMHO they made WAY to many mistakes there and only now just starting
to catch up to where WPF was in 2005.
Another thing to understand is that for example it took years to
develop classical analysis in math but nowadays it's just a couple of
semesters. Stealing a good vision from other expert(s) is a good
interim short-cut.
Well, there *is* that, too.
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
