241–250 of 515 posts
I think about this a lot, and the conclusion I've come to is that the market (simply meaning the popularity) rewards features and intuitive UI above everything else. I think we've been on this trajectory for some time: getting users with less and less actual computer literacy to do more and more with computers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have to buy developer accounts The Apple Developer Program is only needed for macOS if you want to do sign your binaries or distribute through the Mac App Store. And you only have to pay Microsoft if you want to publish to the Microsoft Store (or use Visual Studio if you're a company that has more than 5 Visual Studio users, more than 250 computers, or more than $1 Million USD in annual revenue). > buy certificat…
If you don't sign your binaries on macOS, the friction for the user to run your app is prohibitive, outside of developer-focused communities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Qt licensing is its own mess. For commercial software, the pricing is 350-500$ per developer, per month. Seriously [1]. The company that now owns the framework doesn't seem to acknowledge the gap between big enterprises and solo developers/smaller teams. [1] Yes, one can use Qt for commercial software without buying a license (as long as it is dynamically linked), but their marketing does everything it can to hide th…
Imagine that, having to pay for the tools one has to use for their work, what an abuse.
The reality is that these are all business decisions:
1) Move to the cloud because the business likes the steady payout of subscriptions. Business customers love not having to hire IT teams and demand six 9s of uptime because it is someone else’s responsibility. But performance needs to just be acceptable to end users.
2) Customers refusing to upgrade on-premises software, that led to long maintenance cycles and endless patches
3) Developing once for the web vs. Multiple times for different platforms – each needing its own developers and testers.
No amount of expertise on the part of developers is going to address these fundamental forces.
I may be way off-base here but this is what I imagine the problem is: 1. Company executive decides their developers need top-of-the-line hardware to remain competitive in today's market 2. Developers make web apps on their company-provided M5 Ultra Pro Max 128GB RAM powerhouse laptop 3. They never test it on their father's old 2010 family PC, or at least they don't test often/thoroughly enough to realize many parts a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't sign your binaries on macOS, the friction for the user to run your app is prohibitive, outside of developer-focused communities.
It didn’t take my kids long to learn how to run unsigned binaries, and neither of them are developers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont agree, there is way more help in terms of writing efficient code today than there was back in time, ive seen horrible code from that time which would not have been produced today.
What we don't teach or reward today is the behaviors and engineering process to write high quality code. A surprising number of inexperienced developers do the following: "once I get any working solution I should immediately open a PR" and let the senior engineers tell them what's wrong with it. When the big money leaves this field I hope there will be more pressure for people to adopt good engineering practices. I l…
My senior developer mentors ended up having to effectively rewrite all of it because while it was technically correct and efficient, it broke all sorts of other good practices (eg didn't fit the existing coding style), or added in additional library dependencies without much thought towards long term maintainability and backwards compatibility.
It was taking so much time for the handful of already busy developers to go through my work that I had to learn to slow down, properly study the existing code and think about writing high quality code that fits the existing codebase. They didn't have the time to put down all their other work just to spend hours walking me through improving.
As you mention, it was like with learning art, it's impractical for a teacher to walk you through everything, you have to learn to identify errors and things you need to improve through your own meticulous study, relying on the teacher to give you hints when you're stuck.
Again and again people complain about this. But it remains a fact that essentially nobody actually wants this. Developers certainly like to have their completely integrated, connected and universal computing platform (the web). And users do not seem to particularly care about performance as long as it is good enough . And that is exactly the standard that is set, software is allowed to be so bad that it doesn't reall…
This is not exactly a new phenomena. People have been complaining about software bloat since at least the mid-1990's. I suspect someone older than myself would gleefully explain that the complaint's went back to the mid-1980's, mid-1970's, etc.. Eventually it gets to the point where only outliers will complain. Everyone else will simply upgrade, put up with the bloat, or stick with old software.
Then there is the question of whether the bloat is worth the benefits. If Docs was a simply a clone of Word, few people would have adopted it. Some people use it because it is free, others since they want to work on or access their documents from various devices, yet others want to collaborate on documents seamlessly. If you're getting something out of the bloat, you're less likely to think of it as bloat.
We also have to consider that some bloat isn't really bloat. It's easy to point to AppleWorks on the Apple II then bemoan how modern word processes require about five orders of magnitude more resources, while ignoring how resource intensive the niceties are. Want to use proportional fonts that look nice at any size and have them rendered properly on the screen? That's about three orders of magnitude more video memory, additional CPU and use for rendering the text, etc.. I'm using that example since it is something people can actually see. Now consider the things they cannot see (such as working on documents larger than the computer's main memory, the memory required for Unicode fonts, the ability to switch between the working document and research notes, memory protection to prevent an ill behaved application from wiping out all of your work). Yes, bloat exists. On the other hand, a lot of the increased resource use is actually quality of life improvements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our docker file for running some ML code at work is 6GiB. That does not include the model files. What the fuck, Nvidia? Am I downloading thousands of permutations of generated code for things I’ll never use?
If you look at the build, yea, it includes everything and kitchen sink. No one cares to parse it down because in most cases, the big GPU servers running this have plenty of hard disk space and since it's a long running container image in most cases, the pull time isn't considered big enough problem for most people to fix. Prime example of "Hardware is cheap and inefficiencies be damned"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't sign your binaries on macOS, the friction for the user to run your app is prohibitive, outside of developer-focused communities.
It didn’t take my kids long to learn how to run unsigned binaries, and neither of them are developers.