8 ms·

> Why is the modern software industry in such a constant state of flux? I see huge software frameworks sort of like political parties. The community around eac

> Why is the modern software industry in such a constant state of flux? I see huge software frameworks sort of like political parties. The community around each of them promotes the benefits of using their framework over someone else’s, and we “vote” by hitching our products to these tools. If you didn’t choose wisely, or the framework didn’t develop in a way that benefited you or your org, you’re probably keeping an eye out for what’s next. The other component to all of this is figuring out how to stay relevant in the industry, and I see more and more frameworks making design decisions around this fact. Take Gatsby, for example. I still can’t figure out why they use graphql to populate templates other than developers wanting graphql experience, ergo let’s use gatsby. The whole point of graphql was to minimize data transfer from server to client, but somebody thought this was somehow more beneficial to generating a static page than a vanilla JS object. > Every time Slack redesigns its interface, users need to relearn where all the buttons are. Nothing can possibly justify rolling out ten million redesigns; I think this partly falls on engineering orgs with development teams that need to justify their existence by constantly rolling out these kinds of changes. Because of Slack decides to freeze the UI, how many front end devs are going to need to be reallocated? This rant was somewhat aimless, but I think ultimately that many of your rightful criticisms are the product of the politics of engineering companies and communities.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> I think ultimately that many of your rightful criticisms are the product of the politics of engineering companies and communities. I don't doubt that. I would, however, like to see some people in those organizations try to enact changes, particularly those nearer the top. The business benefits of doing less unnecessary work are relatively obvious. Separately, a lot of the attitudes towards legacy software use ought to change. Most techies regard organizations still running Windows 7 in 2020 with a mix of amusement and scorn. "Windows 7 came out X years ago, why haven't they upgraded by now?" Well, why haven't they? Maybe because they already paid for the development of Custom Software X, and aren't particularly keen in redoing all of that work just because Microsoft decided to change things. I don't feel great about Microsoft holding security patches hostage just because more Windows 10 customers would improve their brand or some such. I understand needing to charge for said patches past a certain period, but why not continue providing it for a reasonable price, as long as their are paying customers?

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

> I think ultimately that many of your rightful criticisms are the product of the politics of engineering companies and communities. I don't doubt that. I would, however, like to see some people in those organizations try to enact changes, particularly those nearer the top. The business benefits of doing less unnecessary work are relatively obvious. Separately, a lot of the attitudes towards legacy software use ought to change. Most techies regard organizations still running Windows 7 in 2020 with a mix of amusement and scorn. "Windows 7 came out X years ago, why haven't they upgraded by now?" Well, why haven't they? Maybe because they already paid for the development of Custom Software X, and aren't particularly keen in redoing all of that work just because Microsoft decided to change things. I don't feel great about Microsoft holding security patches hostage just because more Windows 10 customers would improve their brand or some such. I understand needing to charge for said patches past a certain period, but why not continue providing it for a reasonable price, as long as their are paying customers?