I think you've actually got no clue how complex and hard the average database/object driven application can become. Nor do you seem to have any idea what is actually entailed in a large CRUD application.
You claim that GMail isn't complex. Jeezus, a tiny % of programmers are capable of recreating that well. Or Microsoft Office! Go get the source code to OpenOffice and say that again. Think about the problem a bit harder and you'll realise it's a freaking compiler that's far more complex than most programming languages.
Far, far, far, far more complex than Dropbox.
I bet the hard bit of Dropox was the seamless UI integration with the OSes and not the routing of data. The data routing was probably solved in an afternoon. That was probably the fun bit.
You seem to have no clue about what is actually hard in programming. Hard problems, pffft.
It's as if I went to projecteuler.net and looked at some code and went 'oh, look, implementing algorithms is easy. Any A-level maths student could do that...'
Graphic designers generally aren't capable of programming or maintaining a large CRUD app, and when they try what usually happens is that some professional has to come and gradually rewrite the whole thing. Without breaking anything. That's hard.
If they are capable then they usually call themselves a programmer, and rightly so. And if they wanted to solve the 'hard' problems, they could. They'd just have to learn about a different area of computing. And I'm mightly jealous of them for having mastered two hard subjects instead of just one.
So next time you want to declare that 90% of programmers could be replaced by people with no programming skills, go look at some source code and then shut up.
Sorry. Those examples are admittedly more complex than I made them out to be. I mentioned scaling to be a more difficult problem. There are some master architects in all those projects, who deal with hard problems, but a large code base is not the same as a complex problem. Large pieces of software are many small and simple problems held together by a complex glue. The architects deal with the glue, but category one programmers can so most of the other stuff without too much difficulty.
No, there generally aren't master architects. I'm surprised to hear you talking about master architects, in traditional programming circles the term is usually met with scorn. There's a perception that people who call themselves architects or talk about architecture tend to suck at programming. That they like talking about code, but in general are not actually capable of doing it.
Hearing someone say they're a software architect or that a company has a software architect is usually a big red flag to run like hell.
Also a large code base is identical to a complex problem. Check the definition of complexity. A complex problem can be broken down into simple components.
Finally the best glue is not complex, it's simple. Complex glue tends to result in brittle magic, a poor abstraction, like traditional asp.net compared to something far more elegant and smaller like ruby on rails.
You claim that GMail isn't complex. Jeezus, a tiny % of programmers are capable of recreating that well. Or Microsoft Office! Go get the source code to OpenOffice and say that again. Think about the problem a bit harder and you'll realise it's a freaking compiler that's far more complex than most programming languages.
Far, far, far, far more complex than Dropbox.
I bet the hard bit of Dropox was the seamless UI integration with the OSes and not the routing of data. The data routing was probably solved in an afternoon. That was probably the fun bit.
You seem to have no clue about what is actually hard in programming. Hard problems, pffft.
It's as if I went to projecteuler.net and looked at some code and went 'oh, look, implementing algorithms is easy. Any A-level maths student could do that...'
Graphic designers generally aren't capable of programming or maintaining a large CRUD app, and when they try what usually happens is that some professional has to come and gradually rewrite the whole thing. Without breaking anything. That's hard.
If they are capable then they usually call themselves a programmer, and rightly so. And if they wanted to solve the 'hard' problems, they could. They'd just have to learn about a different area of computing. And I'm mightly jealous of them for having mastered two hard subjects instead of just one.
So next time you want to declare that 90% of programmers could be replaced by people with no programming skills, go look at some source code and then shut up.