I’d be interested in the tail end of the graph. I assume that the longer the software is in operation, the more complex and worse it gets. From an anecdotal perspective, that’s my experience anyway having worked on some legacy projects in my time.
Software design gets worse before it gets better
141–145 of 145 posts
Re: Software design gets worse before it gets better
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
... while avoiding their tantrums which will most likely destroy that "clean and simple".
"tantrums" is when you expect windows to be delineated with borders apparently. You got the Wayland attitude down pat: are we the problem? No, it's the users who are wrong!
This does not concern wayland, this is a user choice, the choice of a wayland compositor.
Re: Software design gets worse before it gets better
#143To boil it down simple: People are vaguely good and competent, they leave systems in a locally-optimal state. In general only changes that are "one step" are considered, and they allways leave things worse when you are currently in a locally optimal state. A multi-step solution will require a stop in a lower-energy state on the way to a better one. Monotonic-only improvement is the path to getting trapped. Take chanc…
I think "better" is ambiguous. Better for developers? Better for users? Better for speed? Better for maintenance? Better license? Better software stack? Better telemetry? Better revenues through subscriptions?
I dont think users care about sofwtare design.
At most they might care about non funcional requirements (e.g. security and performance)
Re: Software design gets worse before it gets better
#144Not my experience at all. My original design decisions rarely change fundamentally. And whatever small changes I decide to implement, I implement step-by-step with each step being a refactored improvement.
It probably helps that I have 30+ years of experience and always pick architectures I have used before on successful projects.
Re: Software design gets worse before it gets better
#145Metaphors get abused in this article in a confusing way, and I don't think it explains why the quality curve goes downward at first -- the initial drop in quality is compared to an initial capital investment? what? -- but I agree with the truth of it. I think the article could be a lot shorter and easier to understand if it simply said that the current design is in a local maximum, and you have to work your way incre…
Wonderful summary.
Perhaps to rephrase it even simpler:
To reach higher mountains we need to climb down our current peak, walk through valleys, until we find higher mountains to climb.