Yeah, that's a fair point. I have plenty of older projects where I no longer understand how they work despite having written the code myself.
I guess the key thing is that you need to be able to demonstrate to yourself that you understand the code at least once, because that means you should be able to revise how it works in the future.
You also can't evaluate if a solution is fit for purpose if you don't understand it.
You don't buy the article's position but have forgotten a lot and not known a lot; so no need to care about your opinion I guess
This is my beef with modern software engineers; complete detachment from physical reality where entropy is eroding structure (memory, generational churn).
Code is just a euphemism for a desired electrical state. No need to dump biz contexts in code. Just make a game engine that efficiently handles geometry on screen and label the presentation layer.
All ya'll are doing is recreating front end rendering technology, forgetting in time and recreating it in new semantics. It's absolutely fucking asinine.
I look forward to models in chips and a tiny universal code base coupled to the machine.
This whole allowing a bunch of unelected rhetoricians tell myself and other hardware engineers we need them to use our property is exhausting.
It's rhetorical nonsense that goes in these broad loops recreating old work.
Time to move on from what titillated you all as children. Or you will just end up entitled Boomers.
Writing code like its 1970s is not high tech. It's old low tech
I guess the key thing is that you need to be able to demonstrate to yourself that you understand the code at least once, because that means you should be able to revise how it works in the future.
You also can't evaluate if a solution is fit for purpose if you don't understand it.