The problem there is that reinventing decades-old technology while believing one can simply shrug off uncounted millions of hours of technical problems and troubleshooting by doing so is in fact extreme hubris. Keeping the existing stack is much more humble.
Ever since I read the Joel on Software article on rewriting [0], I tend to share this opinion. However, there comes a point where it's much better to shuck some or all the layer of the tech stack.
It's inarguable that our current state of hardware and software is a festering pile of legacy layer upon legacy layer. C, x86 and Unix got us far and they were the only tech in their category that could do what they did, but the world has come a long way and they come with essential downsides (in both senses of the word). There will be replacements for each, eventually.
C is finally meeting its match in Rust and certain other contenders, while x86 is sort-of under siege by ARM and RISC-V. It will take a while before it happens, but we will be better off as an industry. We will build back better, simply because we have the benefit of hindsight now.
I agree the end result could very well be better. But, I’d also say it could very well be worse. As a result, it’s risky, and therefore ambitious rather than a humble thing to do.
Perhaps, but we still have the old thing to fall back on for a little while if the new thing is really that bad. This will give it enough time to iron out the bugs.
For example, Linux is in the middle of switching out the display server for something more modern, but not everyone has moved on because the new display server is still missing features and interoperability that the old one had. Everyone will eventually move on from the old one, but it's not like it's automatically overshadowed just because there's a new thing.
I would say Wayland vs X11 is a great example of how a rewrite can go wrong. In theory, Wayland should be better because it's easier to reason about and more restricted, but in practice, X11 being "dumb" (anything goes) is probably what led to its mass adoption to begin with. This mismatch in expectations has led to a falloff of support in what would otherwise be a thriving open source project.
Several of our general purpose platforms that have mass appeal (TTYs, the telephone systems, the Internet, FM radio, heck, even Fax) are built on unopinionated, stupid pipes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wayland is very much not a dumb pipe. As a result, it's risky in my book.
It's hilarious that you use "hubris" to describe the old stuff which works but is long in the tooth. Are we actually going to reinvent all the wheels, completely destroy backwards compatibility, and come up with a computing platform that is a pleasure to use and develop for? And who's going to explain to grandma that it's better even if it won't run the bridge game she bought in 1996?
What's the immense hubris? The reinventing the wheel constantly?
I mean rebuilding from the bottom up would be an example of that hubris at work... So I feel like I'm not understanding what you were trying to convey.
