4 ms·

I think a real issue we developers face is the management and client attitude that software does not require maintenance. Time and time again, the fact that our

I think a real issue we developers face is the management and client attitude that software does not require maintenance. Time and time again, the fact that our completed projects require maintenance or they simply fail with newer systems is greeted with shock, debate and accusation of deceit.

pdimitar 6y ago
Yes. IMO that's the root of the issue. If there was an incentive to invest in what the OP advocates for, it would have received a military level of funding and attention decades ago. Problem is, most people are under the illusion that software is like a woodwork or metalwork gadget: you make it once and it can work happily for 10 years without changes. Which is an extra funny thing to believe in because it doesn't apply to those physical gadgets either. It seems people just want things to be created once and used infinite amount of times and even if I can relate to that desire, it's simply not the universe we are living in. And in spite of countless evidence to the contrary, it's still an extremely persistent illusion that creates untold amounts of friction between shareholders and programmers every day.
- Icathian 6y ago
  I think I see it slightly differently. People have a shifting baseline of expectation around software that isn't present in "traditional" tools. The hammer you inherited from your grandfather still does what it did the day it was made, and so do ls and grep. It absolutely does not hammer nails at 10000x the speed while talking to every new kind of hammer made around the world, but somehow software is expected to gain that ability without any additional effort. I don't really have a solution for this, I think tech consumers/clients are just always going to want what they want and not care so much about what it takes to make it happen. Thus they will always be surprised and grumble about the price. That just seems like human nature to me.
  - pdimitar 6y ago
    > Thus they will always be surprised and grumble about the price. That just seems like human nature to me. Absolutely. I see it the same way. After commercially programming for 19 years I've seen exactly zero progress in the human race with regards to that particular problem. It is apparently a built-in bug of our brains and everybody discovers it for themselves down the line (and 99% proceed to never fix it). I think I recall one quote from a seemingly famous building architect (I think the guy who built the Fallingwater house, so Frank Lloyd Wright?) that was along the lines that you never put all expenses in plain view of the customer at first; you put a reasonable cost plan in front of them and then, after they are heavily invested in you, start giving them the other expenses (which are inevitable and not invented by you, let's accentuate that!). Many people call that a scummy practice but the truth is, EVERYONE is expensive, some are just better at selling themselves. So you have to give the customer the truth spoon by spoon because they prefer lies and truth is too hard to swallow at one bite. And apparently that's how people tick. I don't like it either. But... blame the game, not the player -- as the saying goes.
diroussel 6y ago
Most clients I’ve worked for are fully aware of this and want maintenance contracts in place to support systems before go live. Of course that doesn’t mean they are happy to spend even more it upgrade systems later. But what the author is proposing would automate and reduce the cost of the support. A company that could achieve this cost saving and market or successful would have an advantage. Unfortunately it is a very hard problem abs many upgrade transformations can’t be proved to be correct with good automated tests. And then you have the problem of how do you automated the maintenance of the tests.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  But that's just the problem: programmers don't want to pay for such a tool. I personally see it as a part of my work and having to pay for that feels like microtransactions in a game to me. So not sure how such a thing could be monetised properly. Likely by only offering enterprise-grade services: the tool itself is free, the customer's programmers could employ it to achieve migration but the customer prefers to outsource the cost. Sort of how several Linuxes are free but come with paid support contracts.
xyzelement 6y ago
Have you tried explaining it in a different way to them? Imagine you brought your car for an oil change and the mechanic says "uhh yeah maybe you can get new oil next year but for the next few months we need to... Uh... Address technical debt in your car... So umm... It's gonna cost you thousands of dollars and you aren't going to get anything you perceive as a change" You'd think they are ripping you off.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  Sadly most programmers are introverted and not well-articulated (which is much worse than being introverted). So when it comes to them you are quite right. However, as a counterpoint to yours, even those of us who can communicate quite clearly get met with very ugly accusations of ripping customers off. People simply come to you with a preconceived notion about how much something must cost (in terms of money, effort and time) and they are absolutely not willing to change that notion -- even if they are on the side of the pure imagination and you are on the side of the facts. It's basic psychology that many of us had to learn even if we never wanted to.

pdimitar 6y ago

Yes. IMO that's the root of the issue. If there was an incentive to invest in what the OP advocates for, it would have received a military level of funding and attention decades ago. Problem is, most people are under the illusion that software is like a woodwork or metalwork gadget: you make it once and it can work happily for 10 years without changes. Which is an extra funny thing to believe in because it doesn't apply to those physical gadgets either. It seems people just want things to be created once and used infinite amount of times and even if I can relate to that desire, it's simply not the universe we are living in. And in spite of countless evidence to the contrary, it's still an extremely persistent illusion that creates untold amounts of friction between shareholders and programmers every day.

Icathian 6y ago
I think I see it slightly differently. People have a shifting baseline of expectation around software that isn't present in "traditional" tools. The hammer you inherited from your grandfather still does what it did the day it was made, and so do ls and grep. It absolutely does not hammer nails at 10000x the speed while talking to every new kind of hammer made around the world, but somehow software is expected to gain that ability without any additional effort. I don't really have a solution for this, I think tech consumers/clients are just always going to want what they want and not care so much about what it takes to make it happen. Thus they will always be surprised and grumble about the price. That just seems like human nature to me.
- pdimitar 6y ago
  > Thus they will always be surprised and grumble about the price. That just seems like human nature to me. Absolutely. I see it the same way. After commercially programming for 19 years I've seen exactly zero progress in the human race with regards to that particular problem. It is apparently a built-in bug of our brains and everybody discovers it for themselves down the line (and 99% proceed to never fix it). I think I recall one quote from a seemingly famous building architect (I think the guy who built the Fallingwater house, so Frank Lloyd Wright?) that was along the lines that you never put all expenses in plain view of the customer at first; you put a reasonable cost plan in front of them and then, after they are heavily invested in you, start giving them the other expenses (which are inevitable and not invented by you, let's accentuate that!). Many people call that a scummy practice but the truth is, EVERYONE is expensive, some are just better at selling themselves. So you have to give the customer the truth spoon by spoon because they prefer lies and truth is too hard to swallow at one bite. And apparently that's how people tick. I don't like it either. But... blame the game, not the player -- as the saying goes.

diroussel 6y ago

Most clients I’ve worked for are fully aware of this and want maintenance contracts in place to support systems before go live. Of course that doesn’t mean they are happy to spend even more it upgrade systems later. But what the author is proposing would automate and reduce the cost of the support. A company that could achieve this cost saving and market or successful would have an advantage. Unfortunately it is a very hard problem abs many upgrade transformations can’t be proved to be correct with good automated tests. And then you have the problem of how do you automated the maintenance of the tests.

pdimitar 6y ago
But that's just the problem: programmers don't want to pay for such a tool. I personally see it as a part of my work and having to pay for that feels like microtransactions in a game to me. So not sure how such a thing could be monetised properly. Likely by only offering enterprise-grade services: the tool itself is free, the customer's programmers could employ it to achieve migration but the customer prefers to outsource the cost. Sort of how several Linuxes are free but come with paid support contracts.

xyzelement 6y ago

Have you tried explaining it in a different way to them? Imagine you brought your car for an oil change and the mechanic says "uhh yeah maybe you can get new oil next year but for the next few months we need to... Uh... Address technical debt in your car... So umm... It's gonna cost you thousands of dollars and you aren't going to get anything you perceive as a change" You'd think they are ripping you off.

pdimitar 6y ago
Sadly most programmers are introverted and not well-articulated (which is much worse than being introverted). So when it comes to them you are quite right. However, as a counterpoint to yours, even those of us who can communicate quite clearly get met with very ugly accusations of ripping customers off. People simply come to you with a preconceived notion about how much something must cost (in terms of money, effort and time) and they are absolutely not willing to change that notion -- even if they are on the side of the pure imagination and you are on the side of the facts. It's basic psychology that many of us had to learn even if we never wanted to.