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

Good software knows when to stop

ogirardot.writizzy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 304 posts

Re: Good software knows when to stop

#131

Post by latexr »

shermantanktop wrote: post #92
latexr wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been in situations where a user makes a feature request and I don’t think it makes sense, but because they’ve been polite and understanding I decide to take the time to explain exactly why it wouldn’t work, but while doing so I basically rubber duck and come up with solutions to the problems I’m describing (which the user hasn’t foreseen yet). Sometimes that ends with me discovering yet even stronger reasons t…

A variant of the first is the highly imaginative user who keeps coming up with new variations or expansions of their idea. It’s not malicious but it can be exhausting. Especially if you try to address their core need but their imagination doesn’t extend quite far enough to see how your effort would help, because they love their ideas.

I would describe those as a variant of the second, not the first. Those imaginative users may be polite, but they’re not understanding. While not rude, they are their own brand of entitled and high maintenance (I like your description of “exhausting”). One major reason I put them in the second category instead of the first is that the result is the same from my side, i.e. I interact with them as little as a I can.

To the first kind, in contrast, I’m happy to answer any question, no matter how silly it may seem, because I can be confident they’ll trust my judgement, that they’ll learn from the interaction, and that the next one will be even better. Just about the only thing I’m sad about regarding those users is that as they grow they start interacting less because they don’t need it as much, as they are able to help themselves.

Now that I think about it, that seems like a good way to differentiate: The good users delight you and demand of you less and less; the bad users drain you and demand of you more and more.

Re: Good software knows when to stop

#132

Post by john_strinlai »

JackSlateur wrote: post #117
john_strinlai wrote: post #12

> Ignore feature requests — don't build what users ask for; understand the underlying problem instead not quite in the same area, but this advice reminds me of blizzard and world of warcraft. for years and years, people requested a "classic" WoW (for non-players, the classic version is an almost bug-for-bug copy of the original 2004-2005 version of the game). for years and years, the reply from blizzard was "you thin…

And the underlying problem is that newer world of warcraft sucks, no ? So when people ask "give us wow classic", what they really want is "give us a nice version of the game" And the team failed to do that multiple times Is this wrong ? Probably

>And the underlying problem is that newer world of warcraft sucks, no ?

no. retail has more players than classic. they just had a massively successful expansion release.

>So when people ask "give us wow classic", what they really want is "give us a nice version of the game"

no, they want classic. you are re-learning what blizzard finally learned. people literally just wanted classic wow.

Re: Good software knows when to stop

#133

Post by bigstrat2003 »

grougnax wrote: post #95
grishka wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if VC funding is a good thing. Good software is made by individual people, nonprofits, or privately-owned entities.

Sometimes you need to pay the people who made the software. You can't steal during all your life. At some point you have to pay the others for the work they did.

Nobody is saying don't pay your developers. Just that VC funding creates perverse incentives within your business where you are pressured to do what is best for your investors, rather than your customers. But there are other business models where one can earn money and still pay the people working on the product.

Re: Good software knows when to stop

#134

Post by plorkyeran »

thewebguyd wrote: post #23
john_strinlai wrote: post #12

> Ignore feature requests — don't build what users ask for; understand the underlying problem instead not quite in the same area, but this advice reminds me of blizzard and world of warcraft. for years and years, people requested a "classic" WoW (for non-players, the classic version is an almost bug-for-bug copy of the original 2004-2005 version of the game). for years and years, the reply from blizzard was "you thin…

To be fair on the Blizzard example, I think Blizzard could have also made the player base just as happy by, doing as your quote said, understanding the underlying problem. It wasn't only a "we want WoW classic bug for bug," it was "the modern game has become so unrecognizable that it's basically WoW 2.0, you ruined it with the modern systems" Blizzard could have rolled back LFR/LFG, class homogenization, brought back…

Other than a brief huge burst of interest at the launch of WoW classic, retail WoW has consistently been significantly larger than Classic. Classic WoW has been a success, but killing the modern game in favor of something more like Classic would have been an astoundingly bad idea.

Re: Good software knows when to stop

#135

Post by latexr »

bob1029 wrote: post #64

I think notepad.exe is the strongest example of this right now. The amount of hacking required to even be allowed to re-associate text files with that particular exe on Win11 was shocking to me. I get that windows is extremely hostile to its users as a general policy, but this one felt extra special.

> I think notepad.exe is the strongest example of this right now.

It’s a strong bad example, i.e. an example of software with doesn’t know when to stop.

https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2026/01/21/notepad...

https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-20...

Re: Good software knows when to stop

#136

Post by ericmcer »

Stardew Valley is a great example of this, and that more is not always better.

Specifically he rolled out a "cave" system with procedural dungeon generation where players could mine through walls and other advanced systems, then undid all of it and ended with ~30 static layouts and very simplistic interactions. The entire game feels like a demonstration that simple, predictable and repeatable interactions with software have more longevity than cutting edge dynamic systems.

Re: Good software knows when to stop

#137

Post by hnfong »

john_strinlai wrote: post #12

> Ignore feature requests — don't build what users ask for; understand the underlying problem instead not quite in the same area, but this advice reminds me of blizzard and world of warcraft. for years and years, people requested a "classic" WoW (for non-players, the classic version is an almost bug-for-bug copy of the original 2004-2005 version of the game). for years and years, the reply from blizzard was "you thin…

The irony of your WoW example is that "retail" WoW basically evolved by Blizzard adding features in response to player feedback where each step when viewed individually seemed reasonable.

And eventually the situation got so "bad" that players realized they actually didn't want any of this (a lot of people have lengthy commentaries on how more in-game friction somehow makes the game better), and then the demand for Classic actually became overwhelming. And even so, I'm not sure Classic consistently has more players than Retail. Probably just two different player bases.

Re: Good software knows when to stop

#138

Post by socalgal2 »

thewebguyd wrote: post #89
paxys wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are basically describing all software ever shipped before webapps and online updates became a thing. Companies wrote software and sold them in boxes. You paid once and it was yours forever. You got exactly what was in the box, no more and no less. The company then shipped a new verson in a different box 1-3 years later. If you liked it enough, and wanted the new features, you bought the new box.

And people liked that model, see the huge backlash when Adobe went subscription for creative suite. I do wedding photography as a side hustle, I upgrade my camera maybe once every ~7 years. Cameras have largely been good enough since 2016 and the 5D Mark IV. I have a pair of R6 mk II that I'll probably hold onto for the next 10 years. Point being, Lightroom has more or less been feature complete for me for a very, ve…

> And people liked that model, see the huge backlash when Adobe went subscription for creative suite.

That backlash was short lived. Adobe went from $4.4 billion in revenue in 2021 to $23.7 billion. It used to cost $2500 for the "master collection". Now it's $50 a month.

I was one of those people that disliked switching to subscription. I stayed on CS6 for years. I'm also only a relatively casual user though. I once tried Affinity Photo for some work. Their workflow, for my needs, would have made me take ~6hrs more time than the similar workflow in Photoshop. So I paid the $120 a year for photoshop/lightroom because $120 is way less than 6hrs of my life. If of course that was my specific case. It might not be true for others. The point was though, $120, at least for me, is not that much money relative to what I charge/get-paid. So I gave in.

Further, Photoshop is a good example (to me) of software that can't stop updating. New formats come out HEIC for example. New cameras with new raw formats come out. New tech comes out. HDR displays are ubiquitous at this point (all apple products, some large percent of Android, PC, and TVs) (which BTW, Photoshop does not yet truly support so expect an upgrade).

Re: Good software knows when to stop

#139

Post by HauntingPin »

hnfong wrote: post #137
john_strinlai wrote: post #12

> Ignore feature requests — don't build what users ask for; understand the underlying problem instead not quite in the same area, but this advice reminds me of blizzard and world of warcraft. for years and years, people requested a "classic" WoW (for non-players, the classic version is an almost bug-for-bug copy of the original 2004-2005 version of the game). for years and years, the reply from blizzard was "you thin…

The irony of your WoW example is that "retail" WoW basically evolved by Blizzard adding features in response to player feedback where each step when viewed individually seemed reasonable. And eventually the situation got so "bad" that players realized they actually didn't want any of this (a lot of people have lengthy commentaries on how more in-game friction somehow makes the game better), and then the demand for Cl…

Does it matter if classic doesn't have as many or more players than retail? Nobody said it would. Just that some players would prefer to play classic and that has certainly held up.

Re: Good software knows when to stop

#140

Post by HauntingPin »

Waterluvian wrote: post #118
john_strinlai wrote: post #12

> Ignore feature requests — don't build what users ask for; understand the underlying problem instead not quite in the same area, but this advice reminds me of blizzard and world of warcraft. for years and years, people requested a "classic" WoW (for non-players, the classic version is an almost bug-for-bug copy of the original 2004-2005 version of the game). for years and years, the reply from blizzard was "you thin…

I think there's possibly more to it. Many, many years passed and the people asking for it changed over time. There's a big difference between, "I wish I could go back 4 years and re-experience it all" and "I wish I could go back 20 years and re-experience it all." I also wonder if maybe they were generally correct. What percentage of people asking for WoW Classic back in the day actually ended up there? It's kind of…

This is such an odd line of argument. They continue to put a lot of resources into classic. Clearly it's paying off for them and there is a large enough demographic that it's financially sensible to do so. They don't run a charity.
Post reply on HN