While I certainly would encourage and do encourage people to code (it) themselves, the claim that using that not doing so
> mean[s] endless seeking, evaluating and further deviation from our goals.
is simply not true. Only if software were written to serve ultra-particular and individual goals would that be the case.
Software is written to serve needs - of fewer or of many. And while it may serve a more constrained set of needs more optimally, it typically serves wide enough needs well enough, that the vast majority of people have most of their software needs met by software written by others (albeit with room for improvement).
Also, almost no person, even a proficient coder, has enough time and attention span to code most of the software they use. On the contrary, we absolutely and necessary _won't and can't_ code "it" ourselves, where "it" is the main bulk of software we use over the course of our lives.
----
Instead of this manifesto, I would suggest a "Write good, robust, widely-usable libraries" manifesto - because that's how other people will be realistically able to code "it" themselves when and if they need to.
I don't know, it's certainly been the pattern I've experienced with Slashdot, reddit, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Windows, Debian, Ubuntu, Mac, Firefox, Chrome, Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, Gmail, Android, iOS, and so many other services and software that I'd be sitting here all day counting them all.
First, I find something which suits me.
Then, it starts growing from under me, typically in the direction of bloat and feature removal.
Then, the usefulness to abuse ratio drops gradually.
Then, I'm faced with having to migrate or simply abandon yet another platform.
It's a serious issue, but I believe we can overcome it with just this sort of approach combining FLOSS and dogfooding.
> mean[s] endless seeking, evaluating and further deviation from our goals.
is simply not true. Only if software were written to serve ultra-particular and individual goals would that be the case.
Software is written to serve needs - of fewer or of many. And while it may serve a more constrained set of needs more optimally, it typically serves wide enough needs well enough, that the vast majority of people have most of their software needs met by software written by others (albeit with room for improvement).
Also, almost no person, even a proficient coder, has enough time and attention span to code most of the software they use. On the contrary, we absolutely and necessary _won't and can't_ code "it" ourselves, where "it" is the main bulk of software we use over the course of our lives.
----
Instead of this manifesto, I would suggest a "Write good, robust, widely-usable libraries" manifesto - because that's how other people will be realistically able to code "it" themselves when and if they need to.