4 ms·
ship code into production, and iterate into good solutions to complex problems based on feedback It makes me sad that this is even considered a serious possibi
by Silhouette 3y ago
ship code into production, and iterate into good solutions to complex problems based on feedback
It makes me sad that this is even considered a serious possibility. It implies that as an industry we have so successfully convinced our customers to accept and pay for junk - as if software being junk is somehow normal or inevitable - that making an effort to competently build a good product doesn't generate enough competitive advantage to be a reliable winning strategy.
- hef19898 3y agoPartially, I think, this is due to fast and ubiquotous internet. I remember the days when games were sold on physical media, played single player on a nost of the time offline computer. Same for other software, updates and patches were cumbersome and expensive. Hence, software had to be complete when shipped. Fast forward, today everything can be patched and fixed OTA. It seems that possibility made it possible to ship pre-Beta stuff. That all those OTA updates are an additional revenue stream didn't help.
- Silhouette 3y agoI am absolutely certain you're right. The forcing function to achieve a respectable level of quality before you ship isn't there in an always-online world. The other big factor IMHO is the amount of speculative money that has poured into the industry in recent times. That has allowed a lot of businesses to survive for longer than they naturally could despite shipping junk and that in turn has taught users/customers that expecting better software is unrealistic. Even most unicorn tech businesses (FAANG etc.) still produce a lot of junk and little that is any good - relative to the almost unimaginable scale of resources they have available - because usually they reached that unicorn status by having one or at most a few massive successes that they can defend and that then subsidise all the bad decisions and junk products just as effectively as VC funding rounds.
- hef19898 3y agoCouldn't agree more. We can lament all day long so, it won't change, will it? When it comes to stuff like that, I feel old!
- Silhouette 3y agoI find it's good to work outside the bubble of modern web/SAAS development from time to time. It doesn't always pay as well but it does maintain a sense of perspective and an awareness of what is possible. Changing cultures is hard but working somewhere with a healthier culture can be easier.
- pylua 3y agoI would argue that the reason companies ship junk is they can’t really afford the costs of slowing down and doing it right. Even mentioning the true cost would shut down most deals.
- Silhouette 3y agoThat is certainly a popular claim but I question how true it really is. I find modern development processes with this emphasis are often comically inefficient. In particular a lot of people who are used to working under those processes seem to dramatically underestimate how much drag the rushed decisions and accumulating tech debt will add to their entire project and how quickly that drag effect will be felt.
- pylua 3y agoI don’t think it is related to design decisions necessarily — I think it is more related to coding to the most common case when there are many more edge cases exposed when you scale the number of users. I mostly witness hurried scenarios in software contracting where each contractor tries to do the bare minimum to meet the definition of demoable. They then leave the project and mark it as another success.
- Silhouette 3y agoLimiting scope at first is reasonable and often necessary. It's the basis of the MVP idea that has stood the test of time. I wouldn't describe a well-made product with limited scope as junk though. By junk I mean compromising quality and taking on excessive tech debt, not just starting small because you have to start somewhere.