Conversation

Notices

1. Adrian Cochrane (alcinnz@floss.social)'s status on Thursday, 10-May-2018 22:00:32 EDT Adrian Cochrane

   I've heard plenty about others evangalizing (even if that's not meant to be their job) software tools they say "do everything".

   This view really perplexes me as we have software tools that do everything: they're called "programming languages". It doesn't take much to make such a tool. What does take effort is making a tool that actually solves a problem well for people.

   1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 07:08:59 EDT clacke

      in reply to
      @alcinnz And then people refuse to develop anything in-house, they want "standardized solutions" that you can "just configure".
      
      And then it turns out "configuring" requires a team of 100 consultants and it takes a year or five, because a "standardized solution" that can be "configured" to do "everything" is just as complex as a programming except the tools are all lousy and you're restricted in what you can do, so you need to develop extensions to the standard tool.
      
      And then the next upgrade comes around and your extensions won't work with it, so you gained fuckall by using a "standardized solution".
      1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 07:09:32 EDT clacke

         in reply to
         @alcinnz And the requirements spec for the new solution is always "well, it should do everything the old one did".
         1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Friday, 11-May-2018 07:12:41 EDT clacke

            in reply to
            @alcinnz The old one was a small Java EE or Hibernate thing that an in-house team of 6 people did in half a year by going around and checking what people actually needed, and it was tailored to their use cases and it worked just fine and everyone hates the new solution because it's slower and support is slower and more expensive.
            
            But it's enterprise-ready.