Even beyond Dogme 95, the 90s were such a great moment for independent and low-budget films.
And this was before the epoch of 24P and digital!
So indie and very low budget films should be much cheaper to make today than in that era of film.
But I feel like the innovation isn't there today, especially in America.
I feel like there should be a market for adult themed movies and writing. I know I am, and others are, hungry for such movies, and production quality doesn't have to be millions of dollars. The writing has to be very good, though.
Where is the Christine Vachon of this generation? Where are the low-budget indie production companies? Are we due for a renaissance here? Is it really just that no one cares about 2-hour films anymore, it's all content content content? (Hard to believe this, I feel the 3/multi-act dramatic experience is hard-wired in us, we need a return to cinema..)
Have you watch Pig (2021)? It wasn't even nominated to the Oscars. Also IMHO Tar (2022) is an excellent movie. J'Accuse (An Office and a Spy...) (2019), The Father (2020), Also liked The Northman (2022). IMHO The House of Gucci (2021) is the best acting of Adam Driver that made me forget he acted in Star Wars.
Sorry but I need to continue with Boiling Point (2021), Dune (2021), Riders of Justice (2020), The Mauritanian (2021).
I find this such a shame. I think this reflects an increasingly consumer versus producer aspect of culture. I find that desktop apps support and foster creativity, and producing readily manipulable creative artifacts - with speed. Sass/webapps/etc tend to foster consumer-oriented, indeed mobile, usage, creation and creative operations are often subtly high-latency and subsequently & so are tacitly discouraged while consumption is encouraged.
Cool! Ping me when you get around to it. I'm still trying to put together some more samples for the homepage if you're willing to let me post them there.
He does say about coupling & cohesion that "if used, they are pulling a fast one on you".
That's wrong. I like the key to his talk but the plague of large complicated systems is exactly coupling and incoherence. Classes are NOT necessarily the way to achieve these.
As others have implied already, he could just as easily have been referring to the words.
I think his intention was to explain that these are the same words (mostly from academia and taken up with reckless abandon via language architectures like Java) that may be thrown around by some to create the code mess (anti-pythonic) in the first place.
"Improving the productivity of a software team is hard. It involves understanding the business, the team, the history, the obstacles blocking progress. It is a complex, context-sensitive problem."
TRUE.
Hiring more devs won't solve the complexity problem unless you happen to lasso a few certain devs with the right experience, perspective and willingness that can identify the true core of a problem and solve it fully and with expedience. Sadly many ("smart", "rock star") devs I've seen are content with shortcut, local maxima solutions that only buy a little bit of time before the team starts hurting again. I don't know why this is. Maybe b/c it's more fun (or feels safer) to code and produce behavior than to do the vigilant things required to stave off complexity. But this is a suicide run -- you feel the wind in your hair b/c you're hacking, coding, etc. but you're actually just running back and forth exhausting yourself and not pushing the line forward as fast as you hope. Don't let this evoke The Tortoise and the Hare fable. The team that does development right will be less like a tortoise and more like an elephant. Ground speed somewhere in between the tortoise and the hare, wise, and pushing the line at the greatest speed.
Sadly many ("smart", "rock star") devs I've seen are content with shortcut, local maxima solutions that only buy a little bit of time before the team starts hurting again. I don't know why this is. Maybe b/c it's more fun (or feels safer) to code and produce behavior than to do the vigilant things required to stave off complexity.
General intelligence is a necessary condition, but far (very, very far) from a sufficient one for being a good programmer. Most of the inept developers I've met have been smart. Intelligence wasn't the problem.
This is why I hate Java and C++. Because it's impossible to evaluate code for quality in these languages at 200-500 LoC (while you can easily do this in Python or Scala) you can't hire based on code samples. So you have to hire based on general intelligence + interviewing skill and you end up with about 15% of your team being outright duds (worse yet, intellectually brilliant and persuasive duds because they passed your hiring process, but still bad programmers and dismal architects) even if you're extremely selective.
That was a great talk. It was really interesting to me that the initial vision behind object-oriented programming was diametrically opposite to the disaster that it has become.
It should be noted that code reviews, though useful for catching defects, are incredibly expensive.
I think there are cheaper ways -- along the lines of automated testing and design reviews in lieu of code reviews -- to reduce risk and defects, and obtain high quality software, than to spend such massive time/$ on code reviews.
They are, but having users find them is even more so.
We use design reviews, code reviews, unit tests, integration tests and final validation tests. Our bug rate is well below 1/kloc, but bugs still get out the door.
In the end it depends on how you calculate Cost of Quality. In some environments, having a customer experience a bug can have disastrous consequences, in others it's not a big deal at all. We're in the former category :-(
And this was before the epoch of 24P and digital!
So indie and very low budget films should be much cheaper to make today than in that era of film.
But I feel like the innovation isn't there today, especially in America.
I feel like there should be a market for adult themed movies and writing. I know I am, and others are, hungry for such movies, and production quality doesn't have to be millions of dollars. The writing has to be very good, though.
Where is the Christine Vachon of this generation? Where are the low-budget indie production companies? Are we due for a renaissance here? Is it really just that no one cares about 2-hour films anymore, it's all content content content? (Hard to believe this, I feel the 3/multi-act dramatic experience is hard-wired in us, we need a return to cinema..)