4 ms·

> Very rarely do these models reflect reality. > It's a nice coincidence when they do. > It's catastrophic when they don't. Well, generally, it’s not my expe

> Very rarely do these models reflect reality. > It's a nice coincidence when they do. > It's catastrophic when they don't. Well, generally, it’s not my experience. Most software out there is not critical. Many bloated crappy webapp might end up badly doing what user is expecting while sucking irrelevantly large amount of resources all day through with erratic bugs showing here and there, yes all true. But this is not as critical as the software that handle your pacemaker or your space rocket. Most software can afford to be crap because most projects are related to human whims for which a lake of quality is at worst a bit of frustration that will not cause a feeling of devastation or pure death penalty. All the more, I guess that most software developers out there are neither working on Sillicon-Valley-like money motivation, nor paying their bill with the kind of software project they love to build on passion. So this means most software that hits market are generated through exogenous miserable remunerations. Who will expect anything else than crap to be the output of such a process?

wryl 2y ago
While I sympathize that the stakes don't appear to match up, I am talking about all software, and also taking into account the fact that these frustrations are numerous. It'd be one thing if it was taken in small pieces, small cracks in the stairs, but half of them are missing on average. I really don't like missing stairs. We're very removed from the usage of our software, and experience it in short-form (hopefully) actionable signals that we use to inform our development process. We don't get to appreciate the real pain in this "death by a thousand cuts" unless we can somehow switch bodies with a new user. I see programming as a trade, however, and we do have the power to govern the quality of our software. There are, however, incentives, financial or not, that can get us to look the other way.
- stackskipton 2y ago
  I don't think most programmers are removed of usage of software. I have to use Google Workspace daily and I'm not sure how Workspace team doesn't have entire GooglePlex hunting for their head. Likewise, I'm shocked that Microsoft Teams is not secluded for their own protection. I've got a laundry list for Azure Team and most of Microsoft employees I know have same list yet it remains so some outside force is driving this. However, I think it's clear why it's this. Business team wants cheaper developers and hope is that if you put enough abstractions out, they can turn over Development to AI or monkeys with typewriters trying to create great works of Shakespeare. I remember reading Log4J exploit and wondered which Log4J developer thought it was a great idea to allow "feature" they added in the first place. Probably someone trying to prevent the monkey from destroying the typewriter. However, it's excellent article and I await the next installment.

wryl 2y ago

While I sympathize that the stakes don't appear to match up, I am talking about all software, and also taking into account the fact that these frustrations are numerous. It'd be one thing if it was taken in small pieces, small cracks in the stairs, but half of them are missing on average. I really don't like missing stairs. We're very removed from the usage of our software, and experience it in short-form (hopefully) actionable signals that we use to inform our development process. We don't get to appreciate the real pain in this "death by a thousand cuts" unless we can somehow switch bodies with a new user. I see programming as a trade, however, and we do have the power to govern the quality of our software. There are, however, incentives, financial or not, that can get us to look the other way.

stackskipton 2y ago
I don't think most programmers are removed of usage of software. I have to use Google Workspace daily and I'm not sure how Workspace team doesn't have entire GooglePlex hunting for their head. Likewise, I'm shocked that Microsoft Teams is not secluded for their own protection. I've got a laundry list for Azure Team and most of Microsoft employees I know have same list yet it remains so some outside force is driving this. However, I think it's clear why it's this. Business team wants cheaper developers and hope is that if you put enough abstractions out, they can turn over Development to AI or monkeys with typewriters trying to create great works of Shakespeare. I remember reading Log4J exploit and wondered which Log4J developer thought it was a great idea to allow "feature" they added in the first place. Probably someone trying to prevent the monkey from destroying the typewriter. However, it's excellent article and I await the next installment.