怪诞的开发风格(由Eric S Raymond在http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/中描述)。Raymond认为1991年Linus Tourvald发布的Linux内核是Bizarre开发风格的第一次使用。

标签，信息分类的方式。是的，就是每个问题下面的小方框。

令人惊讶的是，标签发明花了大约30年的时间。我们使用了目录和目录;我们使用了为印刷书籍优化的东西。

然而，30年比人们意识到印刷书籍可以用更小的格式的时间短得多。人们可以把书放在手里。

我认为核心CS玩家低估了标签概念。所有的研究都集中在自然语言处理(自顶向下的方法)。但是标签是第一种计算机和人类都能很好理解的语言。这是一种自底向上的方法，使计算机使用自然语言。

MPI和PVM并行化。

回答“为什么新思想会消亡”和“如何应对”这两个问题?

I suspect a lot of the lack of progress is due to the massive influx of capital and entrenched wealth in the industry. Sounds counterintuitive, but I think it's become conventional wisdom that any new idea gets one shot; if it doesn't make it at the first try, it can't come back. It gets bought by someone with entrenched interests, or just FAILs, and the energy is gone. A couple examples are tablet computers, and integrated office software. The Newton and several others had real potential, but ended up (through competitive attrition and bad judgment) squandering their birthrights, killing whole categories. (I was especially fond of Ashton Tate's Framework; but I'm still stuck with Word and Excel).

怎么办呢?首先想到的是Wm。莎士比亚的建议:“让我们杀了所有的律师。”但恐怕他们现在装备太精良了。实际上，我认为最好的选择是找到某种开源计划。它们似乎比其他选择更好地保持可访问性和增量改进。但是这个行业已经变得足够大了，所以某种有机的合作机制是必要的。

I also think that there's a dynamic that says that the entrenched interests (especially platforms) require a substantial amount of change - churn - to justify continuing revenue streams; and this absorbs a lot of creative energy that could have been spent in better ways. Look how much time we spend treading water with the newest iteration from Microsoft or Sun or Linux or Firefox, making changes to systems that for the most part work fine already. It's not because they are evil, it's just built into the industry. There's no such thing as Stable Equilibrium; all the feedback mechanisms are positive, favoring change over stability. (Did you ever see a feature withdrawn, or a change retracted?)

关于SO的另一个讨论线索是臭鼬工厂综合症(参考:Geoffrey Moore):在大型组织中，真正的创新几乎总是(90%以上)出现在自发出现的未经授权的项目中，这些项目完全由个人或小团队的主动性推动(通常会受到正式的管理等级的反对)。所以:质疑权威，反抗体制。

我没有资格在一般意义上回答这个问题，但仅限于计算机编程?并不多。

为什么?我思考这个问题已经有一段时间了，我认为我们缺少两样东西:历史感和客观评价我们所创造的一切的方法。并非所有情况都是这样，但大体上是这样。

For history, I think it's just something not emphasized enough in popular writing or computer science programs. Take language features, for example. A canonical source might be HOPL, but it's definitely not common knowledge among programmers to be able to mark the point in time or in which language a feature like GC or closures first appeared. And of course after that there's knowledge of progression over time: how has OOP changed since Simula? Compare and contrast our sense of history with that of other fields like maybe political science or philosophy.

至于判断，这确实是我们寻求成功的客观衡量标准的失败。给定foobar，它以什么可衡量的方式改进了编程行为中的某些方面，其中foobar是任何设计模式，敏捷方法，TDD等等。我们有没有试过测量这个?我们到底想测量什么?正确性，程序员的生产力，代码的易读性等等?如何?软件工程确实应该着手解决这些问题，但我还没有看到。

企业服务总线似乎是一个相当新的“发明”，尽管它当然是基于更古老的技术。