Programming

26138 readers

730 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

UlrikHD@programming.dev

bugsmith@programming.dev

Spyro@programming.dev

Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick 3 or Get None (loup-vaillant.fr)

submitted 2 months ago by HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org to c/programming@programming.dev

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Matches my own experience when working on software where quality matters, like large and long-running scientific projects: Even if there are tight time constraints, you won't sacrifice quality, because that would make you slower.

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Even if there are tight time constraints, you won’t sacrifice quality, because that would make you slower.

Too right. People find this so hard to understand. I think they dramatically underestimate the payback time on technical debt.

I am currently working in a startup that has the classic "we're a startup, quality doesn't matter" attitude. They think that they might not be around in a year so it's best to go fast and not give a shit about tech debt.

In my experience that attitude bites in under 6 months. I'm already wasting entire days sorting out messes that they neglected to deal with.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

In my experience that attitude bites in under 6 months. I'm already wasting entire days sorting out messes that they neglected to deal with.

That's pretty much in line with what John Ousterhout writes. I think if you deal with multi-threading / locking / diszributed systems stuff, that time span is likely to be lower.

[–] tetrislife@leminal.space 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

hmm. Are you atleast getting credit for fixing all that?

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 5 points 2 months ago

No, generally people are annoyed that you're spending time paying off tech debt instead of piling on more.

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wrong take on cheap, and addressed to the wrong party in the system. Efficiency and simplicity are already mandatory for being good, particularly in software.

This is why so many techbros should stick to software, or even better, sales. You are not the user.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Can you explain?

Why is it a wrong take?
Do you agree with the author? If not, where is the point where disagreement occurs?
Why should techbros stick to software? Do you mean managers / CEOs ? Software developers?

[–] MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I agree that the things they are saying are non-optional aren't, and that teams can get too large, resource allocations so large they become a hindrace, etc ... but calling being intentional about such things "cheap" just invites Elon-stans and their ilk to give their teams, suppliers, and vendors shit over not magically pulling off the unicorn-trifecta,; Without (paid)overtime, no-less.

Do NOT let people re-define the necessities and trade-offs of price(raw materials, equipment, comforts, safety), pay, team-size, or (excessive)managerial/administrative overhead. In the end, they will have you feeling like you owe them for the opportunity to do the work of five people for peanuts.

If you care to check my comment history, I recently got-into-it for trying to redefine "en-shitification" to include things like tech-debt and planned-obselescence. Really, what irks me is that the one has all-but shut-down conversations about the other two. "That's just enshittification" or "that's not enshittification" will get trotted-out whenever needed to bring the conversation away from them, or keep it from moving towards the two, because no-one gets promoted by mentioning any of the three, but enshittification is almost-acceptable water-cooler talk, for the moment, with the bonus that it shames the speaker for cussing.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Same for hardware builtin crypto, like encrypting storage. Except there it's 2 of 3.