3 ms·

Paraphrasing: "To be fair to one of the consistently largest software giants of the last 40 years, with nearly unlimited budget and a reputation for paying its

• ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Enterprise software is fucking awful despite spending an enormous amount of money on it, and that's because the developers and the development process and the SMEs and the managers and vice presidents are all fucking awful at their jobs Enterprise software written 20 years ago still runs and works. I can still install it from an Msi package Half the android apps I bought 5 years ago don't exist any more. In Google they would have cancelled, closed, relaunched and cancelled again. Games are hit and miss, admittedly some run for decades. But above all, they dont care
  • the_af 4y ago
    Games can avoid a lot of maintenance patterns that look like cruft simply because many games are fire and forget and not truly expected to have a long shelf life. PS: you wouldn't believe how many tries it took to get my phone to accept the word "cruft" instead of autocorrecting it to craft. Dammit!
• naikrovek 4y ago
  > This is not the defense you seem to think it is. it’s not a defense at all, it’s my whole point. enterprise software is absolutely lost, because following enormous sets of rules and enforcing those rules via management is FAR CHEAPER AND EASIER than hiring skilled people who don’t need those rules to produce good software. if that isn’t the very definition of bad management and business practices, i don’t know what is. enterprise software being a total shitshow is my point, because a shitshow is far better for shareholders in the short term. filling seats with dopes you hope to train is easy to measure. carefully harvesting the best talent is slow, expensive, and difficult to measure. microsoft does that. all large publicly traded companies optimize for short-term gain at the expense of long-term loss. game companies, the good ones, the smaller ones, don’t operate like that. there are shit managers there, too, but game companies attract the exact talent they need, almost by default. they care about what they create because not caring means bad reviews, low sales, no bonuses, and layoffs. the punishment for writing shit software at any enterprise company is continued employment, and at worst, an involuntary lateral move to another position where software quality does not matter. microsoft is an enterprise software developer. they are burdened with that management style just like a lot of our employers are.
  • WalterBright 4y ago
    > microsoft does that. all large publicly traded companies optimize for short-term gain at the expense of long-term loss. I hear this claim all the time, but nobody is able to explain why they continue to grow profits.
    • pid-1 4y ago
      I'm the "main tech guy" of a financial firm and I can answer this question. It's because people like me don't care about user experience. We get Teams for free in our M365 subscription. It's integrated with other stuff, it has APIs for automation and I can't be blamed for choosing MS. I know this is a shitty argument... but seriously, I have many battles to fight, not wasting my energy choosing the best chat software. Devs think a lot a about software quality and stuff, but that's often irrelevant for business. GP is wrong, MS knows exactly what they need to do to increase profits.
    • naikrovek 4y ago
      optimizing for short-term gain is growing profit. what do you think short-term gain is? it's gain! what it isn't is investing in quality and long-term success; it's betting that you'll be able to find some other short-term optimization in the future, and it relies on the stock market having a memory that lasts no longer than one year
      • WalterBright 4y ago
        Microsoft has had 35 years of long term growth. How can you say optimizing for short term profit at the expense of long term profit is their strategy? > and it relies on the stock market having a memory that lasts no longer than one year If that was true, you could easily make $billions shorting those stocks that you know sacrifice the long term. Let us know how it goes!
        • naikrovek 4y ago
          Microsoft doesn't do _everything_ with an eye on short-term gain, is why. Everything Microsoft did in the 1990s was based on returning profit sooner rather than later. That's the whole point of "embrace, extend, extinguish": liquidate this technology and turn it into money as fast as possible. Every time you make a decision which gives you money or profit today, and that decision is based on money alone, you are optimizing for the short term at the expense of the long term. It is easier to think about when you think of personal finances. You can have a slightly bigger paycheck every pay period or you can set aside money for retirement. You can maximize profit today if you borrow from your own future. I should not have said that Microsoft do this exclusively (and at this very second I'm not sure I said that) because they don't do that exclusively. It is a common approach to decisions regarding stock price and "shareholder value" however.
• lmm 4y ago
  Games developers have a very different tradeoff between bugginess and speed than most developers. Security bugs are completely fine, inconsistent and unreproducible behaviour is mostly fine, especially if it's funny.
  • seba_dos1 4y ago
    > are completely fine Can be fine. There are plenty of computer game genres where security bugs are not fine at all and where you need to be super careful to not introduce nondeterminism as that would break the whole game, all while maintaining performance.
• ajdude 4y ago
  Companies should market their software based on celebrity programmers who wrote it. Similar to Shelby cars or warren Buffett stock pics.
• spaetzleesser 4y ago
  Just look at Teams. It feels more and more like a project run by a few interns that are practicing Agile.