4 ms·
The economic angle is not as clear cut as the authors seem to think. There is an abundance of mediocre and even awful code in products that are not failing bec
by stephc_int13 6mo ago
The economic angle is not as clear cut as the authors seem to think.
There is an abundance of mediocre and even awful code in products that are not failing because of it.
The worst thing about poorly designed software architecture is that it tends to freeze and accumulate more and more technical debt. This is not always a competitive issue, and with enough money you can maintain pretty much any codebases.
- wreath 6mo agoEven with enough money, you may not be able to attract/keep talented engineers who are willing to put up with such a work environment (the codebase itself, and probably the culture that led to its state) and who want to ship well built/designed software but are slowed down by the mess.
- pixl97 6mo agoThis completely depends on the current economy. When you work with F500s you end up seeing code and culture that is absolute balls and that I would never work directly for all the time. And yet roles are always filled. And when the economy gets bad, they have decent engineers. I call it the fast food quality theory of economics. When the economy is good, low pay jobs tend to have low quality employees and it shows in their products. When the economy gets bad higher quality employees end up downgrading because of layoffs and the quality of these low tier jobs improves.
- woeirua 6mo agoThe most successful software in a field is typically NOT the best software. The authors of the article live in a world that does not exist. Clean code lost, many years ago.