What a beautiful website.
Notes on Software Quality
31–40 of 82 posts
Re: Notes on Software Quality
#32> Quality is impossible at scale
That's a "yes and no" thing. Handmade quality, yes, but some companies get pretty good at finding a "sweet spot," between better-than-average quality, and "Rolls Royce" quality.
Source: I worked for a company that was pretty much renowned for Quality. We made stuff that is pretty near the top shelf, but still a rung or two under the top.
It's not easy.
Also, customers are willing to pay for garbage. As long as that continues, garbage producers will drive quality producers out of business.
Re: Notes on Software Quality
#33I tend to agree with a few others here, Quality is not just the absence of problems, it is something deeper.
For me it means care and attention were paid while developing, the rough edges have been smoothed off for want of a better phrase. This doesn't mean using the latest and greatest framework or library, usually quality will come from a deep understanding of the basics and concepts like design patterns .
You can spot quality code in the same way to can tell a fake Rolex from a real one but the quality of the movement.
Re: Notes on Software Quality
#34If thorough testing and 100 experts can’t find a problem, the thing is probably perfect. If you can get 100 experts to agree on something then you've cracked a much harder problem than software quality.
Agreed. We cant even get 10 dentists to agree which toothpaste to use. Getting 100 experts to agree on anything is a miracle.
Re: Notes on Software Quality
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A CEO who cares about interface _design_ is path to micromanaging and pain. That's how Apple blew up into a trillion dollar company.
...while being a painful place to work at, so not really disproving the point. Plenty of other CEOs have thought the secret to Apple's success was micromanaging like Steve Jobs and been proved very wrong. The best CEOs hire people smarter than them (in their respective disciplines) rather than assuming they always know best.
Those CEOs are often not around though once the company has fully matured. Then it’s back to micro managing and endless unclear company priorities..
Re: Notes on Software Quality
#36> Beauty: Is the software as aesthetically pleasing as possible?
Imo this point should be changed to reviewability. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Re: Notes on Software Quality
#37Absence of problems is definitely a major factor but I like to think of 'maintainability' as being the main marker of quality. Maintainable code has fewer problems because it makes problems easier to solve.
Re: Notes on Software Quality
#38Since it’s so subjective let’s poll our engineers’ NPS!
“How likely are you to work in this codebase again?”
0 = Least likely 10 = Most likely
Re: Notes on Software Quality
#39If thorough testing and 100 experts can’t find a problem, the thing is probably perfect. If you can get 100 experts to agree on something then you've cracked a much harder problem than software quality.
Presumably, this is why the next paragraph opens with "Perfection is impossible."
So, if 100 experts can’t find a problem, the thing is probably perfect. Unfortunately, this will never happen, because perfection is impossible.
Re: Notes on Software Quality
#40Keep in mind that there are people for whom thinking about quality has been their whole career, for decades. There've been long-running industry studies on software quality that have gathered metrics across thousands of businesses on what works and what doesn't. People have been focusing on quality in businesses in general for centuries. It's not a solved problem, but it has been tackled by experts for a long time. I…
> It is based on the premise of making work easier for workers. The objective is to thoroughly eliminate waste and shorten lead times to deliver vehicles to customers quickly, at a low cost, and with high quality.
^ = from your linked Toyota Production System philosophy
Thanks for that link! I find those two early sentences to be an insightful and relatively complete loop of process.
When considering using automation or ~A.I. we can easily ask: which part of this loop is our addition improving (or messing up)? Where is the balance that works?
As you point out, answering these what-works/quality questions are not solved problems and expertise is needful, but careful consideration does not seem to be a popular mode in our age of fountaining funny money and magic genies.
I grew up in the '60s where the science fiction/future was always: march of progress and you'll have so much time and choices! Now I am in the future and the reality is close to: who has the time?
More insidiously/invisibly: you have plenty of time for endless momentary thrills, but no one has time to make things better.
Once upon a time there were customer complaint departments and the Production System would get fixed. Then it became suggestion boxes and returns. Then pleading for a Return Merchandise Authorization. Then it's your call is valuable to us recordings before click call hangups. Oops, unhappy customer?--give 'em a coupon to keep up the addiction, it's cheaper than Quality Control.
The latest devolution seems like fire the workers but use AI to mesmerize customers, or just mind control ~investors and ~regulators, since who needs cover-our-costs-paying-customers anyway?
Will the pendulum swing back?