4 ms·

> Despite the apparent advantages of reusing Instagram's platform for Threads (much faster delivery time), Malkani admitted the company introduced a substantial

by dotdi 2y ago

> Despite the apparent advantages of reusing Instagram's platform for Threads (much faster delivery time), Malkani admitted the company introduced a substantial amount of technical debt that must be addressed in the future. This is not the feel-good "ye olde ways are always better" post that the headline suggests. This is a quick-and-dirty ship it by tomorrow™ and we will worry about building it properly later.

throwaway2990 2y ago
[flagged]
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  Your comment and the GPs aren’t disagreeing.
- _factor 2y ago
  If fixing technical debt after the fact costs more than 10months of operating. You have a problem. Not counting the extra hours needed to maintain an archaic codebase. This was more about the uncertainty of threads succeeding. It’s easier to swallow writing off a port than a brand new implementation.
- azangru 2y ago
  > They could have good greenfield project and shipped in 15 months. Could they have had a good greenfield project and shipped it in 5 months?
- rowanG077 2y ago
  They profited of it? Bold statement considering it is a meta product. I would be extremely surprised if they have achieved even a single dollar of profit.
  - throwaway2990 2y ago
    100% They collected millions of people’s data.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
vouwfietsman 2y ago
"building it properly" This strikes me as funny: what could "properly" mean to an industry if a successfully launched and operational piece of software serving clients globally somehow doesn't meet the requirements. I think this talk of "proper" is just purism, its not grounded in reality or sound engineering practices. The article should be lauded as kicking off a new era of practical engineering that rejects software purism.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  One of the requirements could be maintainability, and the fact that is launched and operational and serving clients globally tells you nothing about that. You're basically arguing there is no such thing as tech debt, if a software works, then there can be nothing wrong with it. I would think this is obviously false.
- Jare 2y ago
  It's a live service. If it "serves clients globally" with the minimal basic functionality at launch, then that's a valid launch. But that's achieved by being a mess under the hood ("technical debt"-like stuff), it probably is expensive to operate, hard and brittle to maintain, and very difficult and slow to extend and expand. That hardly meets all the requirements of a global and ambitious live service that has to move fast to gain traction against established, experienced and aggressive competitors. It's a valid tradeoff and a successful launch, but it's ok to say it's "not properly built" for what comes next.
  - vouwfietsman 2y ago
    "technical debt"-like stuff Again, what is this based on. Mostly on the fact that they reused existing parts to build a new service? Why is this alone something to frown upon and conclude it is achieved by being "a mess under the hood"? Maybe it is a mess, maybe it isn't. There's no reason to conclude this, other than the fact that there was reuse. Hence purism. EDIT: actually the software devs mention introducing tech-debt themselves, my bad.
- orf 2y ago
Shrezzing 2y ago
Meta were executing on sudden nascent demand for a well managed microblogging platform in the wake of Twitter's buyout. A 5 month copy/paste of one of their existing platforms was absolutely "building it properly" in that context. They could have definitely spent 12-24 months building the platform diligently from naught, but they'd have the same end product, just 12 months too late. The demand could have been satisfied by any one of several players in the industry (Tiktok, bluesky, LinkedIn, Twitter itself, Snapchat, a resurrected MySpace, etc), so rushing to gain first-mover advantage was likely the singular consideration for the project.

by dotdi 2y ago

throwaway2990 2y ago

[flagged]

hnlmorg 2y ago
Your comment and the GPs aren’t disagreeing.
_factor 2y ago
If fixing technical debt after the fact costs more than 10months of operating. You have a problem. Not counting the extra hours needed to maintain an archaic codebase. This was more about the uncertainty of threads succeeding. It’s easier to swallow writing off a port than a brand new implementation.
azangru 2y ago
> They could have good greenfield project and shipped in 15 months. Could they have had a good greenfield project and shipped it in 5 months?
rowanG077 2y ago
They profited of it? Bold statement considering it is a meta product. I would be extremely surprised if they have achieved even a single dollar of profit.
- throwaway2990 2y ago
  100% They collected millions of people’s data.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

vouwfietsman 2y ago

"building it properly" This strikes me as funny: what could "properly" mean to an industry if a successfully launched and operational piece of software serving clients globally somehow doesn't meet the requirements. I think this talk of "proper" is just purism, its not grounded in reality or sound engineering practices. The article should be lauded as kicking off a new era of practical engineering that rejects software purism.

lucianbr 2y ago
One of the requirements could be maintainability, and the fact that is launched and operational and serving clients globally tells you nothing about that. You're basically arguing there is no such thing as tech debt, if a software works, then there can be nothing wrong with it. I would think this is obviously false.
Jare 2y ago
It's a live service. If it "serves clients globally" with the minimal basic functionality at launch, then that's a valid launch. But that's achieved by being a mess under the hood ("technical debt"-like stuff), it probably is expensive to operate, hard and brittle to maintain, and very difficult and slow to extend and expand. That hardly meets all the requirements of a global and ambitious live service that has to move fast to gain traction against established, experienced and aggressive competitors. It's a valid tradeoff and a successful launch, but it's ok to say it's "not properly built" for what comes next.
- vouwfietsman 2y ago
  "technical debt"-like stuff Again, what is this based on. Mostly on the fact that they reused existing parts to build a new service? Why is this alone something to frown upon and conclude it is achieved by being "a mess under the hood"? Maybe it is a mess, maybe it isn't. There's no reason to conclude this, other than the fact that there was reuse. Hence purism. EDIT: actually the software devs mention introducing tech-debt themselves, my bad.
orf 2y ago

Shrezzing 2y ago

Meta were executing on sudden nascent demand for a well managed microblogging platform in the wake of Twitter's buyout. A 5 month copy/paste of one of their existing platforms was absolutely "building it properly" in that context. They could have definitely spent 12-24 months building the platform diligently from naught, but they'd have the same end product, just 12 months too late. The demand could have been satisfied by any one of several players in the industry (Tiktok, bluesky, LinkedIn, Twitter itself, Snapchat, a resurrected MySpace, etc), so rushing to gain first-mover advantage was likely the singular consideration for the project.