11–20 of 81 posts
In my mind Jira is gone, glad to see others are thinking in the same direction. Where does Jira really sit in a world eaten up by vibecoding?
Awesome to see this. Like a few others here, I hand-rolled (well, Codex-rolled) something similar that works great for me. I keep going back and forth on open-sourcing it, but my hunch is people won't really adopt these kinds of things anyway. Everyone ends up with a workflow shaped really tightly around how they work, and it's gotten so cheap to just build and evolve your own as the models and harnesses change that…
People who like Jira (or rather want; I doubt one ever “needs” this thing), and make decisions on its implementation and payment, and force it on others, are not the people who are shopping for alternatives. So who these alternatives are really for?
Awesome to see this. Like a few others here, I hand-rolled (well, Codex-rolled) something similar that works great for me. I keep going back and forth on open-sourcing it, but my hunch is people won't really adopt these kinds of things anyway. Everyone ends up with a workflow shaped really tightly around how they work, and it's gotten so cheap to just build and evolve your own as the models and harnesses change that…
I think we can consider this among the positive consequences of LLMs. Building software is cheaper, you don’t have anymore to adapt your company processes to the tools available in the market. If you don’t find what you’re looking for, you can build it and actually see if there’s a market interest for it.
I'm not convinced companies always need software tailored to their workflows, and could benefit from adopting worn-path workflows instead.
People who like Jira (or rather want; I doubt one ever “needs” this thing), and make decisions on its implementation and payment, and force it on others, are not the people who are shopping for alternatives. So who these alternatives are really for?
Presumably some of them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we can consider this among the positive consequences of LLMs. Building software is cheaper, you don’t have anymore to adapt your company processes to the tools available in the market. If you don’t find what you’re looking for, you can build it and actually see if there’s a market interest for it.
Aren't we losing something there too though. I always respected a company with a product that had "things figured out" and pushed their product in conjunction with a way of working that was well researched and proven to be optimized. I'm not convinced companies always need software tailored to their workflows, and could benefit from adopting worn-path workflows instead.
Currently though we are in a world where things change every week, model capabilities, harnesses, pricing etc. Forcing a norm wont work, because there is no such norm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we can consider this among the positive consequences of LLMs. Building software is cheaper, you don’t have anymore to adapt your company processes to the tools available in the market. If you don’t find what you’re looking for, you can build it and actually see if there’s a market interest for it.
Aren't we losing something there too though. I always respected a company with a product that had "things figured out" and pushed their product in conjunction with a way of working that was well researched and proven to be optimized. I'm not convinced companies always need software tailored to their workflows, and could benefit from adopting worn-path workflows instead.