• fodor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    All of the examples are commercial products. The author doesn’t know or doesn’t realize that this is a capitalist problem. Of course, there is bloat in some open source projects. But nothing like what is described in those examples.

    And I don’t think you can avoid that if you’re a capitalist. You make money by adding features that maybe nobody wants. And you need to keep doing something new. Maintenance doesn’t make you any money.

    So this looks like AI plus capitalism.

  • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    These aren’t feature requirements. They’re memory leaks that nobody bothered to fix.

    Yet all those examples have been fixed 🤣. Most of them are from 3-5 years ago and were fixed not long after being reported.

    Software development is hard - that’s why not everyone can do it. You can do everything perfectly in your development, testing, and deployment, and there will still be tonnes of people that get issues if enough people use your program because not everyone’s machines are the same, not everyone’s OS is the same, etc. If you’ve ever run one of those “debloat windows” type programs, for example, your OS is probably fucked beyond belief and any problem you encounter will be due to that.

    Big programs are updated almost constantly - some daily even! As development gets more and more advanced with more and more features and more and more platforms, it doesn’t get easier. What matters is if the problems get fixed, and these days you basically wait 24 hours max for a fix.

  • squaresinger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    The article is very much off point.

    • Software quality wasn’t great in 2018 and then suddenly declined. Software quality has been as shit as legally possible since the dawn of (programming) time.
    • The software crisis has never ended. It has only been increasing in severity.
    • Ever since we have been trying to squeeze more programming performance out of software developers at the cost of performance.

    The main issue is the software crisis: Hardware performance follows moore’s law, developer performance is mostly constant.

    If the memory of your computer is counted in bytes without a SI-prefix and your CPU has maybe a dozen or two instructions, then it’s possible for a single human being to comprehend everything the computer is doing and to program it very close to optimally.

    The same is not possible if your computer has subsystems upon subsystems and even the keyboard controller has more power and complexity than the whole apollo programs combined.

    So to program exponentially more complex systems we would need exponentially more software developer budget. But since it’s really hard to scale software developers exponentially, we’ve been trying to use abstraction layers to hide complexity, to share and re-use work (no need for everyone to re-invent the templating engine) and to have clear boundries that allow for better cooperation.

    That was the case way before electron already. Compiled languages started the trend, languages like Java or C# deepened it, and using modern middleware and frameworks just increased it.

    OOP complains about the chain “React → Electron → Chromium → Docker → Kubernetes → VM → managed DB → API gateways”. But he doesn’t even consider that even if you run “straight on bare metal” there’s a whole stack of abstractions in between your code and the execution. Every major component inside a PC nowadays runs its own separate dedicated OS that neither the end user nor the developer of ordinary software ever sees.

    But the main issue always reverts back to the software crisis. If we had infinite developer resources we could write optimal software. But we don’t so we can’t and thus we put in abstraction layers to improve ease of use for the developers, because otherwise we would never ship anything.

    If you want to complain, complain to the mangers who don’t allocate enough resources and to the investors who don’t want to dump millions into the development of simple programs. And to the customers who aren’t ok with simple things but who want modern cutting edge everything in their programs.

    In the end it’s sadly really the case: Memory and performance gets cheaper in an exponential fashion, while developers are still mere humans and their performance stays largely constant.

    So which of these two values SHOULD we optimize for?


    The real problem in regards to software quality is not abstraction layers but “business agile” (as in “business doesn’t need to make any long term plans but can cancel or change anything at any time”) and lack of QA budget.

    • BillBurBaggins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      And you can’t even zoom into the images on mobile. Maybe it’s harder than they think if they can’t even pick their blogging site without bugs

  • vane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Quality in this economy ? We need to fire some people to cut costs and use telemetry to make sure everyone that’s left uses AI to pay AI companies because our investors demand it because they invested all their money in AI and they see no return.

  • themaninblack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Being obtuse for a moment, let me just say: build it right!

    That means minimalism! No architecture astronauts! No unnecessary abstraction! No premature optimisation!

    Lean on opinionated frameworks so as to focus on coding the business rules!

    And for the love of all that is holy, have your developers sit next to the people that will be using the software!

    All of this will inherently reduce runaway algorithmic complexity, prevent the sort of artisanal work that causes leakiness, and speed up your code.

  • The_Decryptor@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The calculator leaked 32GB of RAM, because the system has 32GB of RAM. Memory leaks are uncontrollable and expand to take the space they’re given, if you had 16MB of RAM in the system then that’s all it’d be able to take before crashing.

    Abstractions can be super powerful, but you need an understanding of why you’re using the abstraction vs. what it’s abstracting. It feels like a lot of them are being used simply to check off a list of buzzwords.

  • PattyMcB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Non-technical hiring managers are a bane for developers (and probably bad for any company). Just saying.

  • geoff@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Anyone else remember a few years ago when companies got rid of all their QA people because something something functional testing? Yeah.

    The uncontrolled growth in abstractions is also very real and very damaging, and now that companies are addicted to the pace of feature delivery this whole slipshod situation has made normal they can’t give it up.

  • neclimdul@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 hours ago

    “AI just weaponized existing incompetence.”

    Daamn. Harsh but hard to argue with.

  • afk_strats@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Accept that quality matters more than velocity. Ship slower, ship working. The cost of fixing production disasters dwarfs the cost of proper development.

    This has been a struggle my entire career. Sometimes, the company listens. Sometimes they don’t. It’s a worthwhile fight but it is a systemic problem caused by management and short-term profit-seeking over healthy business growth

    • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      15 hours ago

      “Apparently there’s never the money to do it right, but somehow there’s always the money to do it twice.”

      Management never likes to have this brought to their attention, especially in a Told You So tone of voice. One thinks if this bothered pointy-haired types so much, maybe they could learn from their mistakes once in a while.

      • ozymandias117@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        14 hours ago

        We’ll just set up another retrospective meeting and have a lessons learned.

        Then we won’t change anything based off the findings of the retro and lessons learned.

        • PattyMcB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Post-mortems always seemed like a waste of time to me, because nobody ever went back and read that particular confluence page (especially me executives who made the same mistake again)

          • shalafi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 hours ago

            Post mortems are for, “Remember when we saw something similar before? What happened and how did we handle it?”

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      There’s levels to it. True quality isn’t worth it, absolute garbage costs a lot though. Some level that mostly works is the sweet spot.

    • HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      14 hours ago

      That applies in so many industries 😅 like you want it done right… Or do you want it done now? Now will cost you 10x long term though…

      Welp now it is I guess.

      • PattyMcB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        12 hours ago

        You can have it fast, you can have it cheap, or you can have it good (high quality), but you can only pick two.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      The sad thing is that velocity pays the bills. Quality it seems, doesn’t matter a shit, and when it does, you can just patch up the bits people noticed.

      • _stranger_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        This is survivorship bias. There’s probably uncountable shitty software that never got adopted. Hell, the E.T. video game was famous for it.

        • Blackmist@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I don’t make games, but fine. Baldurs Gate 3 (PS5 co-op) and Skyrim (Xbox 360) had more crashes than any games I’ve ever played.

          Did that stop either of them being highly rated top selling games? No. Did it stop me enjoying them? No.

          Quality feels important, but past a certain point, it really isn’t. Luck, knowing the market, maneuverability. This will get you most of the way there. Look at Fortnite. It was a wonky building game they quickly cobbled into a PUBG clone.

  • chunes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Software has a serious “one more lane will fix traffic” problem.

    Don’t give programmers better hardware or else they will write worse software. End of.

    • nelson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      16 hours ago

      This is very true. You don’t need a bigger database server, you need an index on that table you query all the time that’s doing full table scans.

      • GenosseFlosse@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        You never worked on old code. It’s never that simple in practice when you have to make changes to existing code without breaking or rewriting everything.

        Sometimes the client wants a new feature that cannot easily implement and has to do a lot of different DB lookups that you can not do in a single query. Sometimes your controller loops over 10000 DB records, and you call a function 3 levels down that suddenly must spawn a new DB query each time it’s called, but you cannot change the parent DB query.

              • Womble@piefed.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 hours ago

                You do accept that bad software has been written, yes? and that some of that software is performing important functions? So how is saying “It needs to be written better in the first place” of any use at all when discussing legacy software?

                • Reginald_T_Biter@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 hours ago

                  It’s not, but you’ll still hear it a lot. Funny, no one can agree on what “better” means, especially not the first person who wrote it, who had unclear requirements, too little time, and 3 other big tickets looming. All of these problems descend from management, they don’t always spontaneously come into being because of “bad devs”, although sometimes they do.

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I’ve been working at a small company where I own a lot of the code base.

    I got my boss to accept slower initial work that was more systemically designed, and now I can complete projects that would have taken weeks in a few days.

    The level of consistency and quality you get by building a proper foundation and doing things right has an insane payoff. And users notice too when they’re using products that work consistently and with low resources.

    • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      (I write only internal tools and I’m a team of one. We have a whole department of people working on public and customer focused stuff.)

      My boss let me spend three months with absolutely no changes to functionality or UI, just to build a better, more configurable back end with a brand new config UI, partly due to necessity (a server constraint changed), otherwise I don’t think it would have ever got off the ground as a project. No changes to master for three months, which was absolutely unheard of.

      At times it was a bit demoralising to do so much work for so long with nothing to show for it, but I knew the new back end would bring useful extras and faster, robust changes.

      The backend config ui is still in its infancy, but my boss is sooo pleased with its effect. He is used to a turnaround for simple changes of between 1 and 10 days for the last few years (the lifetime of the project), but now he’s getting used to a reply saying I’ve pushed to live between 1 and 10 minutes.

      Brand new features still take time, but now that we really understand what it needs to do after the first few years, it was enormously helpful to structure the whole thing to be much more organised around real world demands and make it considerably more automatic.

      Feels food. Feels really good.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      18 hours ago

      This is one of the things that frustrates me about my current boss. He keeps talking about some future project that uses a new codebase we’re currently writing, at which point we’ll “clean it up and see what works and what doesn’t.” Meanwhile, he complains about my code and how it’s “too Pythonic,” what with my docstrings, functions for code reuse, and type hints.

      So I secretly maintain a second codebase with better documentation and optimization.

      • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        How can your code be too pythonic?

        Also type hints are the shit. Nothing better than hitting shift tab and getting completions and documentation.

        Even if you’re planning to migrate to a hypothetical new code base, getting a bunch of documented modules for free is a huge time saver.

        Also migrations fucking suck, you’re an idiot if you think that will solve your problems.

  • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I think a substantial part of the problem is the employee turnover rates in the industry. It seems to be just accepted that everyone is going to jump to another company every couple years (usually due to companies not giving adequate raises). This leads to a situation where, consciously or subconsciously, noone really gives a shit about the product. Everyone does their job (and only their job, not a hint of anything extra), but they’re not going to take on major long term projects, because they’re already one foot out the door, looking for the next job. Shitty middle management of course drastically exacerbates the issue.

    I think that’s why there’s a lot of open source software that’s better than the corporate stuff. Half the time it’s just one person working on it, but they actually give a shit.

    • HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      It seems to be just accepted that everyone is going to jump to another company every couple years (usually due to companies not giving adequate raises).

      Well. I did the last jump because the quality was so bad.

    • MotoAsh@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      Definitely part of it. The other part is soooo many companies hire shit idiots out of college. Sure, they have a degree, but they’ve barely understood the concept of deep logic for four years in many cases, and virtually zero experience with ANY major framework or library.

      Then, dumb management puts them on tasks they’re not qualified for, add on that Agile development means “don’t solve any problem you don’t have to” for some fools, and… the result is the entire industry becomes full of functionally idiots.

      It’s the same problem with late-stage capitalism… Executives focus on money over longevity and the economy becomes way more tumultuous. The industry focuses way too hard on “move fast and break things” than making quality, and … here we are, discussing how the industry has become shit.

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        Shit idiots with enthusiasm could be trained, mentored, molded into assets for the company, by the company.

        Ala an apprenticeship structure or something similar, like how you need X years before you’re a journeyman at many hands on trades.

        But uh, nope, C suite could order something like that be implemented at any time.

        They don’t though.

        Because that would make next quarter projections not look as good.

        And because that would require actual leadership.

        This used to be how things largely worked in the software industry.

        But, as with many other industries, now finance runs everything, and they’re trapped in a system of their own making… but its not really trapped, because… they’ll still get a golden parachute no matter what happens, everyone else suffers, so that’s fine.

        • MotoAsh@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          14 hours ago

          Exactly. I don’t know why I’m being downvoted for describing the thing we all agree happens…

          I don’t blame the students for not being seasoned professionals. I clearly blame the executives that constantly replace seasoned engineers with fresh hires they don’t have to pay as much.

          Then everyone surprise pikachu faces when crap is the result… Functionally idiots is absolutely correct for the reality we’re all staring at. I am directly part of this industry, so this is more meant as honest retrospective than baseless namecalling. What happens these days is idiotry.

          • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Yep, literal, functional idiots, as in, they keep doing easily provably as stupid things, mainly because they are too stubborn to admit they could be wrong about anything.

            I used to be part of this industry, and I bailed, because the ratio of higher ups that I encountered anywhere, who were competent at their jobs vs arrogant lying assholes was about 1:9.

            Corpo tech culture is fucked.

            Makes me wanna chip in a little with a Johnny Silverhand solo.

            • MotoAsh@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Fuck man, why don’t more ethical-ish devs join to make stuff? What’s the missing link on top of easy sharing like FOSS kinda’ already has?

              Obviously programming is a bit niche, but fuck… how can ethical programmers come together to survive under capitalism? Sure, profit sharing and coops aren’t bad, but something of a cultural nexus is missing in this space it feels…

              • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 hours ago

                Well, I’m not quite sure how to … intentionally create a cultural nexus … but I would say that having something like lemmy, piefed, the fediverse, is at least a good start.

                Socializing, discussion, via a non corpo platform.

                Beyond that, uh, maybe something more lile an actual syndicalist collective, or at least a union?

      • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        13 hours ago

        My hot take : lots of projects would benefit from a traditional project management cycle instead of trying to force Agile on every projects.

        • MotoAsh@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Agile SHOULD have a lot of the things ‘traditional’ management looks for! Though so many, including many college teachers I’ve heard, think of it way too strictly.

          It’s just the time scale shrinks as necessary for specific deliverable goals instead of the whole product… instead of having a design for the whole thing from top to bottom, you start with a good overview and implement general arch to service what load you’ll need. Then you break down the tasks, and solve the problems more and more and yadda yadda…

          IMO, the people that think Agile Development means only implement the bare minimum … are part of the complete fucking idiot portion of the industry.

      • WanderingThoughts@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        18 hours ago

        That’s “disrupting the industry” or “revolutionizing the way we do things” these days. The “move fast and break things” slogan has too much of a stink to it now.

        • MotoAsh@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Probably because all the dummies are finally realizing it’s a fucking stupid slogan that’s constantly being misinterpreted from what it’s supposed to mean. lol (as if the dummies even realize it has a more logical interpretation…)

          Now if only they would complete the maturation process and realize all of the tech bro bullshit runs counter to good engineering or business…

  • kayazere@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Another big problem not mentioned in the article is companies refusing to hire QA engineers to do actual testing before releasing.

    The last two American companies I worked for had fired all the QA engineers or refused to hire any. Engineers were supposed to “own” their features and test them themselves before release. It’s obvious that this can’t provide the same level of testing and the software gets released full of bugs and only the happy path works.