The other day, I posted a lament about modern (popular) programming being mostly a matter of connecting pre-existing components or libraries with minimal work. In the post I stated that I didn't find such work satisfying.
The next day, however, I realized something - I've just spent nearly a decade in advanced development roles happily creating prototypes by modifying and combining pre-existing software components with the minimal possible work. Spot the inconsistency?
This perplexed me - why did I react this way to Mike Taylor's post when I have enjoyed such prototyping work so much?
After some thought, I concluded that my prototype work has involved modifying complex systems. This has required first understanding enough about each system's design and software to determine the minimal changes required to implement the desired functionality. So, although the eventual changes were relatively minor (100s to 10Ks LOC), along the way I had to obtain a deep understanding to complete the task. I think this is the material difference between the prototyping work I've enjoyed and the kind of "library gluing" that I dislike (and Mike of course!). If true, then there is no inconsistency after all.
Clearly the issue isn't black-and-white - the amount of work performed doesn't represent the amount of understanding required. To some degree this reminds me of the Simplicity Cycle - after a certain point, enough understanding is achieved to make the solution simpler, not more complex. From this perspective, I suspect that the satisfaction that I - and perhaps others - seek is the result of crossing that complexity-understanding threshold - this may be the "grokking" point that was easier to achieve in simpler times (e.g. 8bit programming).
