Item — HN Reader

> Creating software is starting to resemble cooking. Your home-cooked software is exactly what you need, without extra fuss or cost. And each time you build something personal, you gain a deeper appreciation for the craft of creating software.

I think this is true, but it also actually requires you to want to make your own software. In cooking, most people are aware that they're physically capable of making a roast chicken with gravy and mashed potatoes.

Yet takeaway/delivery is thriving. It's not that the ability to cook is scarce, but the desire to do it. I think the same is (now) true with building software.

1 comments

I could probably be a pretty damn good cook, perhaps even a sous chef. But there is so so much I want to do that is not cooking. Is it really so difficult for CEOs and devrels of AI companies to imagine that some people don't want to spend their time making software, even if it is accessible?

If we stick with the comparison to cooking, I think AI is not like a cookbook, but like an air fryer.

A cookbook lets you cook like Thomas Keller or Eric Ripert or whoever because you get their exact recipes, even when those recipes have 18 steps and take 7 hours.

An air fryer lets anyone make something acceptably tasty in 20 minutes and with zero technique.

Imo this is what AI is doing for software building. It lets almost anyone build something that accomplishes a job. But we don't have to expect it to have scalable architecture, beautiful UI or follow security best practices.

I think part of the problem is that most software engineers rightfully care about these things for their jobs. But maybe they don't matter if you're building "home-cooked software".

The same way you can read cookbooks from 3 michelin star chefs and wonder if anyone will ever follow the recipes in them (check out Marc Pierre White recipes for an example).

I think the cooking metaphor is actively wrong.

Cooking (manually) takes skill (let's say that's a one-time thing you need to have acquired in the past) and then it needs time (repeatedly).

The outcome (food) is a temporary benefit.

Software meanwhile, in general, is written once in order to solve a problem at all, or make a task easier/more repeatable. The software is the cook, so to speak.

A more apt comparison would be to craft a cooking tool that makes your work easier, or possible at all. (e.g a pot)

> A more apt comparison would be to craft a cooking tool that makes your work easier, or possible at all. (e.g a pot)

Which is funny because almost nobody ever makes their own cooking tools. Most people are happy to buy off the shelf—just like software.

I don't disagree that the comparison isn't perfect, but your take just spelled out why this home-cooked software idea is pretty unlikely.

I think this is especially true because Gen Z/Alpha seem to actually be less tech-savvy than previous generations.

I reread that part of the post and this makes me disagree even more (not with you):

> The more that build software, the more who will appreciate using great software. Cooking at home makes you appreciate going out to eat.

Like.. no, I don't appreciate great cooking in restaurants.

I'm eating out because I hate cooking and I don't know how to cook certain things and with my tools I am not able to cook certain things. (e.g. good pizza). But the stuff I like cooking (and can do) is not worse than the same dish in a restaurant, sometimes I even prefer it. Same for software.

But I guess that's the thing. If I'm a professional software developer it would be kinda weird if I hated using my own home-made software? So maybe this is actually more true for people who just need a thing but can't do it without (AI) help?