> To get beyond being a hack, you need to understand the entire stack, including the code that you didn't write, including both libraries, frameworks and the OS, and including the hardware, the networking layers, and so forth.
I think maybe you overestimate your own knowledge here. It's one thing to understand general principles and design or to understand a contextually-relevant vertical or whatever. It's another to demand comprehensive (even if not expert) familiarity in non-trivial projects, especially those created by many developers over long time spans. It's not just a question of intelligence or dedication or even just time spend working on a project.
The amount of software even your typical piece of code relies on is staggering and shifting, and it's only getting more complicated. A good chunk of software engineering and programming language research has been focused on making it practical to operate in such an complex environment - an environment that nobody fully understands - which is a major part of why modularity exists. Making software like "plumbing together [...] black boxes" is exactly what such research aspired to accomplish, because it allows different developers to focus on different scopes and focus on the domain they're working on. Software engineering is a practical field, and any system that requires full knowledge to operate, modify, and extend is either relatively small (maybe greenfield and written by a sole developer) or impractical to work with.
So I would say there's a wide gap between "lazy guy who doesn't give a shit" and "guy who thinks he can understand everything". Both lack the humility and wisdom needed to know the limits of their knowledge, to circumscribe what he needs to understand, and to operate within the space these afford. (Both extremes remind me of cocky junior devs. On the one hand, you have the junior dev who carelessly churns out "hot shit" garbage code by plumbing things together with no grasp or appreciation of sound design; on the other you have the dev who makes a big show about "rigor" completely detached from the actual realities and needs of the project. In each case, the dev is failing to engage intelligently with the subject matter.)
Well I mean I've built an internet search engine from scratch[1] and I'm making a living off this successfully enough to have completely left the wagie existence for the foreseeable future, so I think I at least kinda walk the talk.
I'm far from the best at anything and make no claims toward knowing everything, but I do think I have reasonable breadth in my experience and work, and I don't think I could have built something like this otherwise.
[1] ... which is something that does not decompose neatly into black boxes and must to a large degree be built from first principles as goddamn nothing off the shelves scales well enough to deal with multi-terabyte workloads at the even a fraction of the speed a bespoke solution can.
But that's sort of my point: you're not walking the walk of others. You are a solo dev. You are working on a project that can be developed by a solo dev, both in terms of size and time frames. It is a greenfield project, so you have been there since the beginning and therefore have a lot of context and knowledge of rationale, history, motives, etc. that rarely anyone has in industry, and certainly not early on.
ok, I kind of knew that already LOL, but I don't have any questions that are more specific so I can't really complain. just gotta get after it i guess.
Yeah I don't know if there is such a thing as good advice in this regard, except the stuff that everyone is saying.
I guess "build something you want", the Temu-bought knockoff of the previous advice. It's not quite as bad advice as it sounds, as it's at least some validation of an idea, and much easier than playing 17D chess trying to predict the zeitgeist.
The luck surface area[1] also isn't quite as talked about as it should, but a good mental model if you're seeking serendipitous life-changing outcomes that I can get behind.
> To get beyond being a hack, you need to understand the entire stack, including the code that you didn't write, including both libraries, frameworks and the OS, and including the hardware, the networking layers, and so forth.
I think maybe you overestimate your own knowledge here. It's one thing to understand general principles and design or to understand a contextually-relevant vertical or whatever. It's another to demand comprehensive (even if not expert) familiarity in non-trivial projects, especially those created by many developers over long time spans. It's not just a question of intelligence or dedication or even just time spend working on a project.
The amount of software even your typical piece of code relies on is staggering and shifting, and it's only getting more complicated. A good chunk of software engineering and programming language research has been focused on making it practical to operate in such an complex environment - an environment that nobody fully understands - which is a major part of why modularity exists. Making software like "plumbing together [...] black boxes" is exactly what such research aspired to accomplish, because it allows different developers to focus on different scopes and focus on the domain they're working on. Software engineering is a practical field, and any system that requires full knowledge to operate, modify, and extend is either relatively small (maybe greenfield and written by a sole developer) or impractical to work with.
So I would say there's a wide gap between "lazy guy who doesn't give a shit" and "guy who thinks he can understand everything". Both lack the humility and wisdom needed to know the limits of their knowledge, to circumscribe what he needs to understand, and to operate within the space these afford. (Both extremes remind me of cocky junior devs. On the one hand, you have the junior dev who carelessly churns out "hot shit" garbage code by plumbing things together with no grasp or appreciation of sound design; on the other you have the dev who makes a big show about "rigor" completely detached from the actual realities and needs of the project. In each case, the dev is failing to engage intelligently with the subject matter.)