3 ms·

Could you expand on what I'm missing? I'd love to hear your analysis (not sarcastic, would love to hear other people's thoughts)

throwaway17_17 5y ago
Obviously not the parent commenter, but I’ll give this a shot. I think that Jon and Casey’s (and those of like mind) are not commenting on Mighty as a piece of individual tech, but commenting on the fact that Mighty as a product could even be in a position to exist. I am most likely to phrase the general position (which I think Jon and Casey would support) put forth as follows: the problem a service like Mighty is trying to solve ONLY exists because the standards and practices of modern software development is fundamentally broken. You even touch on this in your GP post about devs taking the shortcuts to ‘making something cool’. As the parent post calls it, the cool stuff tribe are those developers who will use available cheat code because they expect that doing so is acceptable. Your GP post seems to try and counter the Jon and Casey position by saying that because developers just want to make things that they will and there is no concern for any impacts these accumulating decisions may have. I think the ‘you’re missing the point’ comment derives from here. You seem to be saying that Jon and Casey’s position is not palatable to devs because those devs are not concerned with performance and don’t like to be told to consider such aspects of the things they make. But, J&C’s point is that if the standards for developing software were not so broken then the position of the cheat code using devs would be uniformly decried as substandard and unacceptable. In a world where development standards were in line with J&C’s views Mighty would not be in a position to be a viable product because using the web via a native browser accessing properly developed web content would be a pain free and perform any experience.

throwaway17_17 5y ago

Obviously not the parent commenter, but I’ll give this a shot. I think that Jon and Casey’s (and those of like mind) are not commenting on Mighty as a piece of individual tech, but commenting on the fact that Mighty as a product could even be in a position to exist. I am most likely to phrase the general position (which I think Jon and Casey would support) put forth as follows: the problem a service like Mighty is trying to solve ONLY exists because the standards and practices of modern software development is fundamentally broken. You even touch on this in your GP post about devs taking the shortcuts to ‘making something cool’. As the parent post calls it, the cool stuff tribe are those developers who will use available cheat code because they expect that doing so is acceptable. Your GP post seems to try and counter the Jon and Casey position by saying that because developers just want to make things that they will and there is no concern for any impacts these accumulating decisions may have. I think the ‘you’re missing the point’ comment derives from here. You seem to be saying that Jon and Casey’s position is not palatable to devs because those devs are not concerned with performance and don’t like to be told to consider such aspects of the things they make. But, J&C’s point is that if the standards for developing software were not so broken then the position of the cheat code using devs would be uniformly decried as substandard and unacceptable. In a world where development standards were in line with J&C’s views Mighty would not be in a position to be a viable product because using the web via a native browser accessing properly developed web content would be a pain free and perform any experience.