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

Life is too short to depend on unstable software

blog.sidebits.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 175 posts

Re: Life is too short to depend on unstable software

#121

Post by BeFlatXIII »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #68
md8z wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep hearing people say that, but how do you propose we write software that has no bugs and does everything perfectly right the first time? That seems impossible.

The first time? Sure, nothing ever gets it right the first time, but over time software should converge on being bug free and not requiring any support at all. Free-with-paid-support has a perverse incentive against this.

What other projects besides (La)TeX and METAFONT have noticeably converged on bug-free over time? Perhaps the Linux & BSD kernels.

Re: Life is too short to depend on unstable software

#122

Post by jcelerier »

rodgerd wrote: post #111
jcelerier wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even on windows you generally have to install the very latest GPU drivers when an AAA game comes out though

Sure. But I don't have to upgrade my whole userland from Win 10 to Win 11 for hardware compatibility. I don't have to upgrade my core OS to run a new version of Lightroom.

> Sure. But I don't have to upgrade my whole userland from Win 10 to Win 11 for hardware compatibility. I don't have to upgrade my core OS to run a new version of Lightroom.

uh... yes, you do, all the time. Lightroom currently requires Windows 10 1903, a 2 years old OS. Most likely in very few years it'll require Win11.

Re: Life is too short to depend on unstable software

#123

Post by joveian »

the__alchemist wrote: post #102

Counterpoint: Stable software may persist poor UI/API, limitations, and mistakes indefinitely.

Security issues can also be more common in older, infrequently used code and it can be a real source of burnout for anyone who wants to fix obvious issues of whatever kind to need to support dozens of obscure worflows that quite possibly no one is actually using.

Re: Life is too short to depend on unstable software

#124

Post by revskill »

bitexploder wrote: post #118
revskill wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Python is bad (mostly) as it taught python dev much hate on Javascript, which is a must for user experience. Most of python programmers i've known and met hate frontend work, and that's why their products are not optimal for user experience, so bad software in general. The point is, to become a senior programmer, one must learn to do fullstack work, from css to deployment.

Genuinely curious, how is Ruby any better there? You can build usable front ends in either language. I care about delivering usable software. Interactive front ends for the sake of it is not a good use of effort. If your app and situation justify it, okay, but it isn’t a hard requirement like many other aspects of full stack. Just depends on what you need for good UX. A pile of Javascript isn’t a requirement there. I…

Without fullstack knowledge, in this case, if you don't care how the frontend will fetch data, how can you optimize the backend (just curious).

Fullstack knowledge is nessessary for optimized backend code, seriously.

Ruby has elegant syntax and structure for functional programming as well as OOP, not like broken Python (1-line lambda and broken OOP).

Re: Life is too short to depend on unstable software

#125

Post by tomnipotent »

deathanatos wrote: post #87
bxparks wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't bother filing bugs or sending PRs. I spend hours filing a detailed bug report. No response. I spend hours crafting a PR. Ignored. I file a bug report along with several possible solutions. I get a snarky response totally unrelated the proposed solutions. But I get it. Maintainers are overworked and jaded. I'm on the receiving end as well, with 95% of the issues like: "help, it's broken" (with no error message…

I file bug reports. It greatly depends on the person running the project; some are like you describe, or they're incompetent (particularly problematic in non-FOSS projects). Those, it's usually pretty clear that you're going to have to weigh "how much do I want this bug fixed" against how painful the process will be. But I've also had maintainers who were very helpful. Recently had to deal with the DST cross-sign exp…

> particularly problematic in non-FOSS projects

In my experience, the products I pay for usually fix bugs faster than FOSS.

Re: Life is too short to depend on unstable software

#126

Post by tomnipotent »

zufallsheld wrote: post #108
hsn915 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only one I'm aware of that does a good job of this is the Go language project, but it's not really your typical FOSS project; it's a Google project, and Google relies on it internally, so the incentive to make it stable and high quality is as high as it will ever get. They don't sell it to others, but they themselves rely on it as a core part of their own business.

When was the last time the Linux kernel or the gnu utils broke for you? For me? Can't remember.

The Linux kernel and many other big FOSS receive a non-trivial number of their contributions from professional programmers on the clock at their day job.

Re: Life is too short to depend on unstable software

#128

Post by exyi »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #121
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first time? Sure, nothing ever gets it right the first time, but over time software should converge on being bug free and not requiring any support at all. Free-with-paid-support has a perverse incentive against this.

What other projects besides (La)TeX and METAFONT have noticeably converged on bug-free over time? Perhaps the Linux & BSD kernels.

LaTeX specifically might be bug free, but it's so incomprehensible to a not very experienced user (like me) that it exactly matches the notion of "software where you need support". the only good thing is that you can often get the support for free on the internet. Even though it might be stable and bug free, I'm just avoiding it for "shinier" things like HTML and Ctrl+P in a browser...

Re: Life is too short to depend on unstable software

#129

Post by jcfrei »

jcelerier wrote: post #80
Mikeb85 wrote: post #74

Honestly, I've had better luck on the bleeding edge. Newer Linux kernels almost always are better (and when they're not, it gets fixed quickly). Wayland is definitely better than X. Newer Gnome is better than old Gnome. Ruby 3 and 3.1 is definitely better than 2.7. Rails 7 is way better than 6, even in alpha state. Deno is nicer than Node (although the ecosystem needs to catch up). Hell, V8 and then Node led to a boo…

I have the same experience, my linux experience (as an user) improved by an order of magnitude when switching to Arch which has the same bleeding edge philosophy.

Yeah but that's also the disadvantage of the Linux ecosystem. Either you're on the same version as the devs or you're screwed.

Re: Life is too short to depend on unstable software

#130

Post by comex »

tomnipotent wrote: post #126
zufallsheld wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When was the last time the Linux kernel or the gnu utils broke for you? For me? Can't remember.

The Linux kernel and many other big FOSS receive a non-trivial number of their contributions from professional programmers on the clock at their day job.

What does that have to do with anything?
Post reply on HN