How ironic of you to call my argument an analogy while it isn't an analogy, yet all you have to offer is exactly that - analogies. Analogies to pilots, drivers, "a thousand examples of careers".
My argument isn't an analogy - it's an observation based on the trajectory of SWE employment specifically. It's you who's trying to reason about what's going to happen with software based on what happened to three-field crop rotation or whatever, not me.
I argued that a developer today is 1000x more effective than in the days of punch cards, yet we have 1000x more developers today. Not only that, this correlation tracked fairly linearly throughout the last many decades.
I would also argue that the productivity improvement between FORTRAN and C, or between C and Python was much, much more impactful than going from JavaScript to JavaScript with ChatGPT.
Software jobs will be redefined, they will require different skill sets, they may even be called something else - but they will still be there.
>How ironic of you to call my argument an analogy while it isn't an analogy, yet all you have to offer is exactly that
Bro I offered you analogies to show you how it's IRRELEVANT. The point was to show you how it's an ineffective form of reasoning via demonstrating it's ineffectiveness FOR YOUR conclusion because using this reasoning can allow you to conclude the OPPOSITE. Assuming this type of reasoning is effective means BOTH what I say is true and what you say is true which leads to a logical contradiction.
There is no irony, only misunderstanding from you.
>I argued that a developer today is 1000x more effective than in the days of punch cards, yet we have 1000x more developers today. Not only that, this correlation tracked fairly linearly throughout the last many decades.
See here, you're using an analogy and claiming it's effective. To which I would typically offer you another analogy that shows the opposite effect, but I feel it would only confuse you further.
>Software jobs will be redefined, they will require different skill sets, they may even be called something else - but they will still be there.
Again, you believe this because of analogies. I recommend you take a stab at my way of reasoning. Try to arrive at your own conclusion without using analogies.
My argument isn't an analogy - it's an observation based on the trajectory of SWE employment specifically. It's you who's trying to reason about what's going to happen with software based on what happened to three-field crop rotation or whatever, not me.
I argued that a developer today is 1000x more effective than in the days of punch cards, yet we have 1000x more developers today. Not only that, this correlation tracked fairly linearly throughout the last many decades.
I would also argue that the productivity improvement between FORTRAN and C, or between C and Python was much, much more impactful than going from JavaScript to JavaScript with ChatGPT.
Software jobs will be redefined, they will require different skill sets, they may even be called something else - but they will still be there.