Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple 2001

corecursive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 50 posts

Re: Apple 2001

#21

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

ronenlh wrote: post #15
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #11

> You usually get 30 seconds in before Steve would grab the iPod out of my boss’s hand and would just start clicking around to play with it. And of course that’s the worst thing ever because half of the stuff isn’t hooked up yet and Steve’s going to hit something and then it’s going to crash. And then Steve just decides that you’re all a bunch of idiots because your software crashes. So we hated it when that happened…

If so, I think he knew the features weren’t finished, but he demanded the product not to crash nevertheless. It’s an interesting thing to expect as a product owner: A stability-first approach to development. I personally hate the “it’s temporary” excuse we developers often have.

The way I work, is that the entire project is in "Ship" quality, the entire time of development; just not yet complete. Incomplete functionality means a blank screen or a button that doesn't do anything. It never means that something crashes.

My goal is zero crashes, ever; at any time during development. The same with memory leaks or severely anomalous behavior.

It's an old-fashioned way of working that results in basically zero tech debt.

I'm allergic to debt, of any kind.

The nice thing about working this way, is you get incredibly well-formed UX, and you don't have that awful "QA surprise," at the end of the project.

It also goes a lot faster than you might think, as bugs get fixed close to the time of their creation.

Re: Apple 2001

#22

Post by Reason077 »

l1k wrote: post #17

> This was the first time that I was aware of Apple had shipped a little Endian processor. FWIW, the LaserWriter 16/600 PS (introduced 1994) uses an Intel 80168 as I/O processor for AppleTalk serving etc. So Apple did develop for and ship little endian CPUs way before the iPod.

> "So Apple did develop for and ship little endian CPUs way before the iPod."

ARM was always little-endian by default. It has a big-endian mode, too, but now days it's virtually never used.

But did Apple actually use the big endian mode in the Newton, which shipped in 1993? Google hasn't been able to give me a clear answer on this.

Re: Apple 2001

#23

Post by nchelluri »

I'm reading the transcript and it's interesting. There must be a transcription process done by someone who is not one of the participants of the conversation. Perhaps automated but (roughly) vetted by a human afterwards.

> When the iPod shipped originally, it only worked on _max_ and it used the HFS plus file system, which was Apple’s file system. And then at some point they said most of the world uses Windows. And so we want to be able to sell a Windows version too. And so we added support for _Phat 32_ so that you could hook the iPod up to a Windows.

max = Macs I'd imagine, and Phat 32 is FAT32 :D

Re: Apple 2001

#25

Post by als0 »

nchelluri wrote: post #23

I'm reading the transcript and it's interesting. There must be a transcription process done by someone who is not one of the participants of the conversation. Perhaps automated but (roughly) vetted by a human afterwards. > When the iPod shipped originally, it only worked on _max_ and it used the HFS plus file system, which was Apple’s file system. And then at some point they said most of the world uses Windows. And s…

Ha, I noticed this too.

"You use one less gate, if you do it little NDN rather than big NDN and so Intel and I guess arm chose little NDN because it used slightly less hardware"

NDN obviously supposed to be 'endian'.

Re: Apple 2001

#26

Post by als0 »

> There was a little team of a couple of guys who got Linux running on early iPhone hardware. There was a team from the Mac group that got a cut down version of the Mac operating system running on the early iPhone hardware. They showed all this stuff to Steve and to the senior vice president of software engineering. And they ended up picking the one that was based on the Mac OS

Kind of cool to daydream of that alternate reality

Re: Apple 2001

#27

Post by capableweb »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #21
ronenlh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If so, I think he knew the features weren’t finished, but he demanded the product not to crash nevertheless. It’s an interesting thing to expect as a product owner: A stability-first approach to development. I personally hate the “it’s temporary” excuse we developers often have.

The way I work, is that the entire project is in "Ship" quality, the entire time of development; just not yet complete. Incomplete functionality means a blank screen or a button that doesn't do anything. It never means that something crashes. My goal is zero crashes, ever ; at any time during development. The same with memory leaks or severely anomalous behavior. It's an old-fashioned way of working that results in b…

Sounds like you have bunch of stuff conflated here. Zero crashes don't mean you get a well-formed UX and that there are no QA surprises. No crashes ever during any time doesn't neither mean that there is zero technical debt, unless we have vastly different understanding of what technical debt even means...

Re: Apple 2001

#28

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

capableweb wrote: post #27
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I work, is that the entire project is in "Ship" quality, the entire time of development; just not yet complete. Incomplete functionality means a blank screen or a button that doesn't do anything. It never means that something crashes. My goal is zero crashes, ever ; at any time during development. The same with memory leaks or severely anomalous behavior. It's an old-fashioned way of working that results in b…

Sounds like you have bunch of stuff conflated here. Zero crashes don't mean you get a well-formed UX and that there are no QA surprises. No crashes ever during any time doesn't neither mean that there is zero technical debt, unless we have vastly different understanding of what technical debt even means...

I'm sure you're right, but my way has been working for me. I think I'll just keep doing it.

Re: Apple 2001

#29

Post by hrunt »

als0 wrote: post #25
nchelluri wrote: post #23

I'm reading the transcript and it's interesting. There must be a transcription process done by someone who is not one of the participants of the conversation. Perhaps automated but (roughly) vetted by a human afterwards. > When the iPod shipped originally, it only worked on _max_ and it used the HFS plus file system, which was Apple’s file system. And then at some point they said most of the world uses Windows. And s…

Ha, I noticed this too. "You use one less gate, if you do it little NDN rather than big NDN and so Intel and I guess arm chose little NDN because it used slightly less hardware" NDN obviously supposed to be 'endian'.

The weirdest part about the translation is that elsewhere, the translation has no problem with "Macs" or "endian".

Re: Apple 2001

#30

Post by russtrotter »

nchelluri wrote: post #23

I'm reading the transcript and it's interesting. There must be a transcription process done by someone who is not one of the participants of the conversation. Perhaps automated but (roughly) vetted by a human afterwards. > When the iPod shipped originally, it only worked on _max_ and it used the HFS plus file system, which was Apple’s file system. And then at some point they said most of the world uses Windows. And s…

ha! glad i wasn't the only one who noticed the almost robot-like transcription: bites, NDN, PHAT, etc
Post reply on HN