4 ms·

I don't see nearly as many people claiming Google could be built in a weekend, but I do see that sentiment a lot in threads about Uber. It's easy to think it's

by lhorie 5y ago

I don't see nearly as many people claiming Google could be built in a weekend, but I do see that sentiment a lot in threads about Uber. It's easy to think it's a simple app, but there was a great response from a former EM highlighting just why that isn't so[0]. > This reminds me of a common fallacy we see in unreliable systems, where people build the happy path with the idea that the happy path is the “real” work, and that error handling can be tacked on later. For reliable systems, error handling is more work than the happy path. Is there a name for this fallacy? I think this isn't merely a familiar anecdote, but something that points to the root of why armchair architects think things are easier than they actually are. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25376346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25376346

spaetzleesser 5y ago
On the one hand I agree but on the other hand it’s really much easier to be a follower and avoid the mistakes the pioneers have made. I am pretty sure there are a ton of legacy things in the Uber platform that are obsolete now and you wouldn’t have to implement if you stated from scratch. But you would also probably run into the same issues that Uber took many years to solve and you probably also would need years. So many be the advantage of being second isn’t as much as thought initially. I often think SpaceX was able to move that quickly because they could learn from decades of experience of NASA and others what works and what doesn’t.
marcosdumay 5y ago
People make this observation about Uber mostly because they can replicate the thing in a few months (it's never a weekend). And proof of that is that many people did replicate Uber software in a few months, some times even with some commercial success. Differently from Google search, the hard thing about Uber is not the software. What makes a lot of sense, but leaves the question of what are all those people doing there, what the article answers, but the answer is not trivial in any way.

by lhorie 5y ago

spaetzleesser 5y ago

On the one hand I agree but on the other hand it’s really much easier to be a follower and avoid the mistakes the pioneers have made. I am pretty sure there are a ton of legacy things in the Uber platform that are obsolete now and you wouldn’t have to implement if you stated from scratch. But you would also probably run into the same issues that Uber took many years to solve and you probably also would need years. So many be the advantage of being second isn’t as much as thought initially. I often think SpaceX was able to move that quickly because they could learn from decades of experience of NASA and others what works and what doesn’t.

marcosdumay 5y ago

People make this observation about Uber mostly because they can replicate the thing in a few months (it's never a weekend). And proof of that is that many people did replicate Uber software in a few months, some times even with some commercial success. Differently from Google search, the hard thing about Uber is not the software. What makes a lot of sense, but leaves the question of what are all those people doing there, what the article answers, but the answer is not trivial in any way.