From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <1536060800.1875390.1496082208.13EE7020@webmail.messagingengine.com> From: Ethan Gardener To: 9fans@9fans.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 12:33:20 +0100 References: <1535997499.784480.1495319464.0DE4D730@webmail.messagingengine.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Is Plan 9 C "Less Dangerous?" Topicbox-Message-UUID: e0d496b8-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, at 11:51 AM, Lucio De Re wrote: > On 9/3/18, Ethan Gardener wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018, at 1:40 PM, Chris McGee wrote: > >> While the idea that many eyes makes bugs shallower seems to have failed > >> in the world of complex behemoth software it may work here. > > > > I think it worked for a while, but eventually complexity grew beyond even > > the many eyes approach. > > > Could even be that the many-eyes approach encouraged the complexity; > in fact, that could easily be the unintended consequence. I suppose it made complexity seem less bad, for a while, but I was thinking economic factors likely drove it to get more complex. Also, I get the impression that some people just love complexity, but these days I'm not so sure. Complexity does have some real benefits.