4 ms·

It's mentioned on their blog: https://www.monicahq.com/blog/a-new-version-is-coming https://www.monicahq.com/blog/a-new-version-is-coming > [...] Monica is an

by kapep 4y ago

It's mentioned on their blog: https://www.monicahq.com/blog/a-new-version-is-coming https://www.monicahq.com/blog/a-new-version-is-coming > [...] Monica is an old code base now. Old in the sense that it’s 7 years old and it has been touched by hundred of contributors. There are some concepts in the code that we let through, because we either didn’t know any better back then or because we didn’t want to piss off contributors, that we don’t want anymore. The project has way too many dependencies, and maintaining the code has become harder than it was before. Changing something is riskier, and takes more time. Also, we’ve seen how people use Monica, what they want to do with it, and the current code limits us way too much if we want to support what people want to use Monica for. Finally, Monica is still a side project for us. We are extremely passionate about it, and we want to also have fun building it. And the current version wasn’t that fun.

muratsu 4y ago
Thanks! Over the years I've seen several companies raise VC money for the personal CRM idea and fail. In a way, I'm glad they didn't raise outside capital and are able to sustain themselves while building something that they are clearly passionate about.
- robinhood 4y ago
  Author of Chandler here. We are able to sustain the server costs, but we have full time jobs "on the side" because it's not sustainable. I don't know if it's ever will. Don't care :-) Raising capital would make this project a full time job, and put tremendous pressure on having to generate revenues. We don't want this pressure at all. We want to provide a nice and useful software because we are geeks and we want to do something good. I know it sounds naive and cliché but it's true. And if the project buys us a new computer from time to time, that's all that matters.
  - swyx 4y ago
    this comment sold me on trying out Monica. thank you for doing what you do.
nico 4y ago
Every re-write I’ve ever seen or been a part of, has either failed or taken way longer and a lot more effort than initially projected. Changing something is definitely not riskier, especially if you have tests and real users who are actively providing feedback as well as showing the edge cases. You can also focus on changing only the things that need changing, instead of having to redo everything just to change some things. A re-write also delays everything, since current users will probably not get any updates nor access to new features until the re-write can provide a good alternative to the existing system. Oh well, I guess since it’s a side project for them, the learning and fun will be more important than providing a good experience to their users.
- robinhood 4y ago
  Author of Chandler here. While rewriting the project is extremely fun and definitely a very good learning curve for us, we actually care A LOT about our users. I believe Chandler is much, much better to use than the current crappy Monica. It's easier, better UI and UX wise, and have way better features. And we are working our asses off to provide an API, and an importer to let you import your data so you won't lose anything. I agree, while we are rewriting the software, we don't have time to do anything on the current codebase, except bug fixes here and there. It's a price we have to pay unfortunately. So why do we rewrite? It's simple - the current codebase is old, and complex, and not fun to work on. We have merged things in the codebase from the community that we shouldn't have merge. The DB structure is old fashioned, and not flexible, so migrations would be a nightmare to do. I'm not saying it's not possible to improve the current codebase, but... that would be an actual job, and we don't want it to feel like a job.
  - Shank 4y ago
    > We have merged things in the codebase from the community that we shouldn't have merge. Do you have examples of what these features are/were? And, sort of tangentially, do you recommend actually setting up Monica in 2022 or waiting until Chandler to try the stack?
- beachy 4y ago
  > Every re-write I’ve ever seen or been a part of, has either failed or taken way longer and a lot more effort than initially projected. On the face of it what you say is true, but I've seen (and I'm sure many have seen) situations where the codebase was so bad - or the underlying technologies so ancient - that a rewrite was the only practical way to get things back on track again. Did the rewrite take way longer than initially projected? Yes. Was it a lot more effort than initially projected? Yes. Was it painful medicine that nonetheless left the business in a better place? Yes.

by kapep 4y ago

muratsu 4y ago

Thanks! Over the years I've seen several companies raise VC money for the personal CRM idea and fail. In a way, I'm glad they didn't raise outside capital and are able to sustain themselves while building something that they are clearly passionate about.

robinhood 4y ago
Author of Chandler here. We are able to sustain the server costs, but we have full time jobs "on the side" because it's not sustainable. I don't know if it's ever will. Don't care :-) Raising capital would make this project a full time job, and put tremendous pressure on having to generate revenues. We don't want this pressure at all. We want to provide a nice and useful software because we are geeks and we want to do something good. I know it sounds naive and cliché but it's true. And if the project buys us a new computer from time to time, that's all that matters.
- swyx 4y ago
  this comment sold me on trying out Monica. thank you for doing what you do.

nico 4y ago

Every re-write I’ve ever seen or been a part of, has either failed or taken way longer and a lot more effort than initially projected. Changing something is definitely not riskier, especially if you have tests and real users who are actively providing feedback as well as showing the edge cases. You can also focus on changing only the things that need changing, instead of having to redo everything just to change some things. A re-write also delays everything, since current users will probably not get any updates nor access to new features until the re-write can provide a good alternative to the existing system. Oh well, I guess since it’s a side project for them, the learning and fun will be more important than providing a good experience to their users.

robinhood 4y ago
Author of Chandler here. While rewriting the project is extremely fun and definitely a very good learning curve for us, we actually care A LOT about our users. I believe Chandler is much, much better to use than the current crappy Monica. It's easier, better UI and UX wise, and have way better features. And we are working our asses off to provide an API, and an importer to let you import your data so you won't lose anything. I agree, while we are rewriting the software, we don't have time to do anything on the current codebase, except bug fixes here and there. It's a price we have to pay unfortunately. So why do we rewrite? It's simple - the current codebase is old, and complex, and not fun to work on. We have merged things in the codebase from the community that we shouldn't have merge. The DB structure is old fashioned, and not flexible, so migrations would be a nightmare to do. I'm not saying it's not possible to improve the current codebase, but... that would be an actual job, and we don't want it to feel like a job.
- Shank 4y ago
  > We have merged things in the codebase from the community that we shouldn't have merge. Do you have examples of what these features are/were? And, sort of tangentially, do you recommend actually setting up Monica in 2022 or waiting until Chandler to try the stack?
beachy 4y ago
> Every re-write I’ve ever seen or been a part of, has either failed or taken way longer and a lot more effort than initially projected. On the face of it what you say is true, but I've seen (and I'm sure many have seen) situations where the codebase was so bad - or the underlying technologies so ancient - that a rewrite was the only practical way to get things back on track again. Did the rewrite take way longer than initially projected? Yes. Was it a lot more effort than initially projected? Yes. Was it painful medicine that nonetheless left the business in a better place? Yes.