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

Why Build Toys

blog.aaronkharris.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 84 posts

Re: Why Build Toys

#61

Post by justanotherguy0 »

tdumitrescu wrote: post #34
spoonjim wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sucks how temporary software is, especially Web software. If you don’t pay the hosting bill it’s gone. If you don’t upgrade to 64 but it’s useless. Essentially it’s a plate spinning on a stick and it needs constant attention to survive. Contrast that to a fine piece of furniture which barring fire or flood can just sit abandoned in a warehouse for 300 years and then be even more valuable than it was initially.

I dunno, as someone with a lot of antique furnishings in a 19th-century house, I'd say that there's quite a bit of ongoing maintenance to prevent the march of time and usual wear and tear from grinding everything to dust!

The timescale is definitely different though.

Re: Why Build Toys

#62

Post by TheRealNGenius »

svilen_dobrev wrote: post #10

now on topic.. quoting "Business is about making money and working with customers. These are very serious and scary things. Toys are for playing and trying new things. This isn’t serious at all": Maybe the problem is that what is called/accepted as "serious" is the opposite of it? A toy for shapeing a mind (of kids) may be looooots more serious/important that some $$$$$ made per-day.. kind-a the 4th planet the little…

quaint book - only one I've read in English and French. I'm particularly fond of the fox:

  It's only with the heart that one can see clearly. What's essential, is invisible to the eye.

Re: Why Build Toys

#63

Post by geoduck14 »

nicoburns wrote: post #15
spoonjim wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sucks how temporary software is, especially Web software. If you don’t pay the hosting bill it’s gone. If you don’t upgrade to 64 but it’s useless. Essentially it’s a plate spinning on a stick and it needs constant attention to survive. Contrast that to a fine piece of furniture which barring fire or flood can just sit abandoned in a warehouse for 300 years and then be even more valuable than it was initially.

Thw flip side being that once built you can potentially reach thousands if not millions of people with your project.

Are you describing a toilet seat at the airport?

Re: Why Build Toys

#64

Post by ineedasername »

Airbnb looked like a doofy hipster thing to hotels for a very long time. And then, when it was too late, they realized that it wasn’t a toy at all.

I always thought Airbnb was an awful idea. I didn't pay attention to it for a long time, except to be surprised it was still around when I would see it mentioned. I'm sure the big hotel companies feel worse about that mentality than I do, though it's probably a good thing I'm not a venture capitalist.

Re: Why Build Toys

#65

Post by ineedasername »

hyperpallium2 wrote: post #59
rpastuszak wrote: post #2

I'm not sure about you, but the more experienced I am, as a developer or "builder", the smaller things I end up making. For instance, I launched a bunch of games that are, frankly, more fun to watch, than to play (e.g. an All-hands meeting simulator: https://rafsters.itch.io/all-hands ) or little tools this one https://sonnet.io/posts/reactive-hole/ (it's stupid, completely replaceable, but somewhat adorable). I come…

Conjecture: the fundamental distinction between software engineering and other engineering disciplines is the lack of DEs. Though calculus plays a role in information theory (and of course in some application domains such as computational fluid dynamics and machine learning). Software engineering is more like a trade or craft, except that it's new and still evolving.

Software engineering seems like it might, eventually, become actual engineering when it matures a bit. Most other forms of engineering have had centuries or even longer to figure things out.

In software, we started with a programmable loom, stagnated for a few centuries, then all at once had tools and systems too complex to understand all of their implications.

It would be like taking apothecaries from the 1700s and putting them in the middle of a massive industrial chemical plant and hoping they make useful things that don't break easily or have design flaws.

Re: Why Build Toys

#66

Post by aarongraham »

rpastuszak wrote: post #2

I'm not sure about you, but the more experienced I am, as a developer or "builder", the smaller things I end up making. For instance, I launched a bunch of games that are, frankly, more fun to watch, than to play (e.g. an All-hands meeting simulator: https://rafsters.itch.io/all-hands ) or little tools this one https://sonnet.io/posts/reactive-hole/ (it's stupid, completely replaceable, but somewhat adorable). I come…

That all-hands simulator is fantastic. We once worked together and have attended some of the same all-hands meetings. Your game is about as painful as the real thing, which makes it even more hilarious.

Re: Why Build Toys

#67

Post by [deleted] »

packetslave wrote: post #9
the_only_law wrote: post #5

I get disappointed when I see someone build something cool, but maybe not commercializable, and the comments come in asking: “yeah, but how are you planning to monetize it”. 90% of the side projects I embark in are likely to have no commercial value, but are pretty cool, at least I’d like to think.

and the ever-popular snide reply: "you have too much free time on your hands"

[deleted]

Re: Why Build Toys

#68

Post by sircastor »

A friend of mine has spent a lot of time recently programming his own ray tracer in OpenGL. He has no intention of turning it into work, not in developing the skill into one that would change his career trajectory. He just thought it would be cool to learn how to make a ray-tracer.

I came across an article[1] recently that suggests that everything we do doesn’t have to turn into a business. I get why people want that, but my anxiety dropped a bit when I decided to just build the thing I wanted to.

[1] https://repeller.com/trap-of-turning-hobbies-into-hustles/

Re: Why Build Toys

#69

Post by wanderingmind »

The toys that you build not necessarily have to make the users happy, but it needs to connect at some emotional level. The more visceral the emotion, the better is the connection. For example, I'm never happy when I use blind in fact it mostly just makes me depressed. But it invokes a deep emotional reaction that I want to go back to using it time and again. Similarly, the echo chambers in social media don't make people happy but provide an emotional vent that makes these applications a huge success.

Re: Why Build Toys

#70

Post by Karrot_Kream »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #56
tdumitrescu wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, as someone with a lot of antique furnishings in a 19th-century house, I'd say that there's quite a bit of ongoing maintenance to prevent the march of time and usual wear and tear from grinding everything to dust!

I don't collect antique furniture, but I do cook with and maintain 100-year old cast iron and a very nice German chef's knife. I think the biggest difference between software maintenance and maintenance of most physical objects is that physical maintenance is calming, tactile and pleasant. Routine software maintenance, on the other hand, is hacky, frustrating and stressful. I would much rather sharpen my knife on a w…

> I think the biggest difference between software maintenance and maintenance of most physical objects is that physical maintenance is calming, tactile and pleasant.

A lot of folks don't think this way. I do, but I know many who don't so it's important to remember that, especially when trying to make systemic judgements on fields of industry.

Post reply on HN