I remember the 90s when both mac and windows crashed on a daily basis. When was the last time you saw a legitimate BSOD that didn't involve hardware failure? When was the last time you had to reset the PRAM on your mac just to get it to boot?
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
87 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
423 readers
7 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Thats actyally very good point. Our phones x100 or x10K more powerful and complex than computers from 90s, but always works and very-very rarely need reboot.
Kernels have gotten better. Professional tools have gotten better. Everything on Linux has gotten better. Compilers and drivers too.
Everything else is built by the lowest bidder and is absolute garbage. And unfortunately, it’s what most people interact with all day long.
Eh.
This "everything else" are stuff that previously didn't even exist. There used to be only professional tools and a few games, now you have an app (or multiple apps) for everything.
And I'll take a garbage program over one that doesn't exist.
There were lots of games back then. And many of them were as bad or worse than the shittiest shovelware and template swaps we've got today.
Thing is, most people don't remember the 200 Action Games 3 disc pack at the bottom of the bargain bin cause they sucked.
I'm not disputing that there is more "stuff" these days by raw numbers, with the barrier to creation and distribution of games and such dramatically lowered by ubiquitous and easy to use tooling. But I bet the ratios of good games to shitty games won't have changed too terribly much over the years.
Fair point. Maybe there’s only ever been so many good software folks, and they are all working on the same stuff they used to.
Everything is getting worse as companies are exclusively trying to squeeze more money out of everyone rather than build good products or services. Everything is done by fewer more overworked workers, with shittier components and features that are designed to extract money out of you rather than be useful or "good" (my favorite example is BMW's subscription based seat warmers.)
That's really what's going on.
Back in the days, people took the time it was necessary to write the software. And managers trusted the engineers to say when it's ready or not.
Nowadays, the software world is managers going "yes we know the database's gonna blow up over the weekend without the query optimizations, but we want to build this new feature before the end of the week. We can deal with the database when it blows up over the weekend, that's why you guys are on-call."
I did not make this up, I've actually heard this. This is why modern software is so fucked up, not because we can't handle the complexity, because reliability and quality just isn't prioritized at all anymore. Gotta dish out new features every day and you're not allowed to work on fixing known critical bugs.
I did not make this up, I’ve actually heard this
I was in the IT industry for about 20 years until I finally had enough a couple of years ago, so none of this is a shock to me 😅 "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe."
Smaller companies can still manake to make quality stuff more often than the giants, but the moment they actually make it into the bigger leagues (if they make it), they have to bring in a a lot of your average MBA types and business "intelligence" folks, and that's when things go down the shitter. They might be making more money but now everything is suddenly about "KPIs" - ie. usually badly defined and/or incorrectly calculated metrics about the service that supposedly reflect how good it is, but at best measure how addictive it is and how much money it makes you, but not how enjoyable it is or if it's actually even a good thing for your users. Not to mention how often those metrics are literal garbage based on such creative abuses of basic statistics that they aren't even wrong. It's astonishing how much trust people put in numbers some BI moron churned out, when the reality very often is that not only was the data collected wrong, but they made completely wrong conclusions about what their data represents ("I'll call the interval between these events the session length") and then applied some statistical methods on them that basically destroyed any information there could possibly have been (like taking the average of averages when the original populations have very different sizes). The CEO may not always understand the tech, but by gawd they do understand numbers, and all these KPIs just seem so convincing. When this line goes up it means that were doing good and on the right path, it's math right?
And now the C-suite is mostly made up of MBA types, the founders probably either left or were stuck in some dark corner where they won't bother anyone too much with their day drinking.
And now the internet service, or TV, or car, or washing machine, or whatever your company has been making is no longer really a service for the users, but more of a machine designed to bleed money out of them as efficiently as possible and that's run according to the tenets of what's essentially modern numerology in a suit and tie (and barely any better at describing anything you could call objective reality).
</rant>
Yep, it's all about selling features now and not caring about the actual product itself at all anymore. Nearsightedness took over the whole industry: boost this quarter's metrics, heck, boost this week's numbers above anything else.
This hits close to home.
I think that there are many potential causes, but I would like to add monopolization to the list.
Usually, a bad release spelled the demise of a company, because release times were so long that competitors could take advantage of a bad software release.
People aren't going to switch from windows because they release something bad or buggy, in that case it would already be dead. Windows isn't technically a monopoly, but they have a lot of inertia and there are many programs that only run on windows that people depend on. There is perhaps a limit to how bad windows can be before people abandon it en masse, but they can get away with a lot. The tech world is full of different companies and programs that are in monopolistic-ish positions.
The main issue is that Linux is too fragmented and absolutely not user friendly enough to be consumer-grade in most applications. Steam is doing their best with SteamOS and they have been making great strides in a lot of areas, and they've even allowed me to feel like I can run Linux as a primary OS without losing out on my main off-time workload of gaming. Stuff like DXVK and Proton have made amazing strides towards a gaming OS that isn't Windows.
Unfortunately too much shit goes wrong for the average user. Troubleshooting also becomes problematic when the community itself is fragmented on solutions. Often I will search up a problem and be recommended different solutions that are not using the tools I have available in favor of the other poster's favorite system. It's very annoying to say "I have problem X and have tools Y" and be told "Well, tool Y will do the job but tool Q will do it better".
I've been running Arch on a laptop recently and the first thing I had to do was troubleshoot networking. I looked at the router, wondered if I fucked up the config. Everything else connects fine, must be something else. Turns out that the clock was out of sync and it was preventing the OS from verifying any cryptography. The only time I've had that shit happen on Windows is on an old Surface RT that would randomly decide it was the year 3000.
Oh man, yeah I've been there with the arch networking issues. To be fair, I do think you sign up for some messing around when you decide to install arch, although it wouldn't hurt to make networking a bit easier. Troubleshooting on windows isn't very fun either, although you might not need to do it as often.
While it might be true that a lot of people are scared away by linux weirdness (or not, for all I know picking a beginner friendly distro and not doing anything weird might be a pretty decent experience, I've been using arch and doing weird stuff the past couple of years), most people don't even get far enough to install linux in the first place so the selection happens before that. Part of it is probably software compatibility, part of it might be that most people advocating linux are techy people who mostly talk about the techy reasons for why you should get linux, which aren't that appealing. Part of it could just be that people are resistant to change because it's annoying to have to learn a new system.
load more comments
(2 replies)
everything went down when we allow web technologies be part of the desktop, everything electron or any other incarnation is an abomination
Amen. I miss actual desktop applications
I have the feeling, that this age will come back in one way or the other (and I have the feeling Rust and Webassembly will be involved ;))
I can understand it tho. What other GUI toolkits have a markup language like HTML? It's so easy compared to having 50 billion different widgets, adding stuff through code is so verbose..
Plenty of them?
Okay but do you expect me to actually know anything about what I'm saying?
(Jokes aside my bad TIL thanks)
The real benefit with Electron is the whole write-once-run-everywhere goal that Java was supposed to originally achieve, combined with super fast prototyping.
Maybe one day we'll get a JIT/AOT version of HTML.
I have two hypotheses for why some kinds of software grow worse over time. They are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, may both be at work in some cases.
Software has transitioned from merely complex to chaotic. That is, there is so much going on within a piece of software and its interactions with other pieces of software, including the operating system itself, that the mathematics of chaos are often more applicable than logic. In a chaotic system, everything from seemingly trivial differences between two ostensibly identical chips to the order in which software is installed, updated, and executed has an effect on the operating environment, producing unpredictable outcomes. I started thinking about the systems I was using with this in mind sometime in the early 2000s.
The "masters" in the field are not paying enough attention to the "apprentices" and "journeymen. Put another way, there are too many programmers like me left unsupervised. I couldn't have had a successful career without tools like Visual Basic and Access, the masterful documentation and tutorials they came with, and the wisdom to make sure I was never in a position where my software might have more than a dozen users at a time at any one site. Now we have people who don't know enough to use one selection to limit the options for the next selection juggling different software and frameworks trying to work in teams to do the bidding of someone who can barely type. And the end result is supposed to be used by thousands of people on all manner of equipment and network connections.
One reason that open source software seems more reliable is that people like me, even if we think we can contribute, are mostly dissuaded by the very complexity of the process. The few of us who do navigate the system to make a contribution have our offerings carefully scrutinized before acceptance.
Another reason that open source software seems more reliable is that most of it is aimed at those with expertise or desiring expertise. At least in my experience, that cohort is much more tolerant of those things that more casual users find frustrating.
Is some software getting worse?
Fixed for ya.
Is most software getting worse?
Fixed for ya.
I wouldn't know. I only use some software.
Yes. Case in point: there are at least 10 Lemmy iOS apps. I'll give you ten guesses on which ones are actually native Swift...
There are a quite a few Android apps in progress too. How many are written in Kotlin?
Jerboa is a native android app, so that's nice.
Yet it still feels sloppy (and I couldn't find why to the defense of Jerboa, I skimmed through the relevant code but couldn't find immediate issues and there's an open issue: https://github.com/dessalines/jerboa/issues/445)
I don't get why, with so much hardware power we still have these issues...
Is there really no native (SwiftUI) iOS app?
Mlem is SwiftUI. It's a buggy pile of crap that loses posts, says "nothing here" when there is something there, has bizarre navigation (where do I tap to go to a post?) Some of that may improve; some seems like no design.
Are any of them out of Test Flight yet?
Voyager isn’t native and it’s good. I’m not totally sure what the hate is for React Native for apps like this. It’s an abstraction over Swift, it’s still Swift under the hood isn’t it?
In my experience, Voyager is still pretty buggy too. For example, try editing a post then go to do anything else after the fact. I always have to restart the whole app when I go to edit a post I made. They have a ton more features than anyone else but there are still tons of bugs.
react native is another layer and lags behind the dev of swift by at least a year. This is a huge problem for new api's like SwiftUI, in my experience. Ps. Native is ALWAYS better than an approximation of native.
Yes. At least since late '90s, and certainly the last 2 decades.
I blame the rise of frameworks, libraries, and IDEs. It's easier for someone who knows nothing to throw some software together and ship it. In the good old days, all software had to be written by someone who knew what they were doing, often in difficult tools. You had to think ahead and write code correctly, because you couldn't just ship patches every week.
And as junior devs get replaced by AI, there won't be any experience for any of them to learn how to do that.
I blame the rise of frameworks, libraries, and IDEs. It’s easier for someone who knows nothing to throw some software together and ship it.
I very much disagree with this. Yes to an extent you don't need to know as much as you might have in the past but if we had to constantly reinvent the wheel, I don't think we would have nearly as many people entering/remaining in this field. Additionally well written frameworks and libraries can actually make your code safer since you don't have to reinvent the wheel and discover the pitfalls all over again. IDEs are also a net positive IMO. Errors next to the line of code that caused them, breakpoints, interactive debugging. These are all things I personally would find hard to live without. Necessities? Technically no. But good god do I not want to have to read build output unless necessary.
If you can only hobble along with tool support, you never understood what you were doing. You don't have to rewrite everything from scratch, but if you can't, you lack the skills to use them effectively, and can't ever improve on them. And like I say, soon AI will replace those consumers.
Compilers are perfectly able to tell you the line of an error, you can use a debugger without the IDE, I run lldb or the Chez Scheme debugger all the time, but I understand what the tool's doing.
In 2014 Robert Martin claimed that number of developers doubles every 5 years and says:
As long as that growth curve continues there will not be enough teachers, role models, and leaders. It means that most software teams will remain relatively unguided, unsupervised, and inexperienced. [...] It means that the industry as a whole will remain dominated by novices, and exist in a state of perpetual immaturity.
Not sure if the data can be confirmed or not, but if that's the case it will be difficult to maintain the best practices in our industry.
I blame the rise of frameworks, libraries, and IDEs.
My thoughts exactly. Frameworks on top of frameworks with a lot of cruft that will incrementally make software slower and buggy.
That, coupled with the fact that business owners just want things shipped. Quality aside, I dont even think they care about products being good anymore 🥲
I disagree to some extent. I could never have had a career without Visual Basic and Access. Now in my retirement, I struggle mightily to put together all the pieces required. You might say that getting me out of the field is a good thing, but without masters creating tools and tutorials for journeymen and women, we will forever need the masters on the front lines instead of leveraging their mastery for more valuable ends.
I no longer look forward to updates.
[...]
It seems to me that some software is actually getting worse, and that this is a more recent trend.
[...]
Why does this happen? I don't know, but my own bias suggests that it's because there's less focus on regression testing. Many of the problems I see look like regression bugs to me. A good engineering team could have caught them with automated regression tests, but these days, it seems as though many teams rely on releasing often and then letting users do the testing.The problem with that approach, however, is that if you don't have good automated tests, fixing one regression may resurrect another.
Every time I see a new update, I think: "I wonder what will break after this update" and postpone them as much as I can. Software updates shouldn't cause anxiety. But they do these days...
They used to cause anxiety in the past as well. But there was a window where - at least I - didn't fear them. Main reason why I still think they are necessary are security patches. But I do fear updates due to their tendency in breaking things.
@canpolat The article is written from the perspective of a Windows user. I'm not surprised. Software as a whole does not get worse; there are some software which get worse, and some technology getting in the way. And then there is software which get better, not worse too. If you cherry pick, then you can prove any point you want to proven right; especially on a very wide range of topics like software.
I'm not sure it's that simple, really. And I definitely don't think this is limited to Windows. I agree with other comments that this is mostly related to complexity. The more complex the domain the more difficult it is to implement/maintain a good solution. Delivering the new shiny feature is more exciting for all people (product management, development, users, etc.) than to fix bugs. And if you don't have the resources/maturity to keep technical debt under control, the software quality will suffer over time. Free software may be the exception here as profit is not always the primary concern.
@canpolat My point was not being limited to Windows, but more that his view is limited to DOS/Windows world, but making general judgements about software. And because Windows and it's eco system of applications he listed gets worse, he extrapolates this to all software.
Let's look at Linux, which is probably the biggest software ever and used on every possible way one can imagine. It got better and better, even though it's extremely big and has a lot of complexity to it and does not want to break compatibility if possible. But I am not saying all software is like that. That's my point. Some software get better, some get worse.
And because Windows and it’s eco system of applications he listed gets worse, he extrapolates this to all software.
They admit that bias in the article:
[...] since I've always been working in the Microsoft tech stack, I use a lot of it. Thus, selection bias clearly is at work here.
Now, I mentioned free software as the exception. I don't have any data as to how big free software vs proprietary software. But I think his points extends at least to other proprietary software and is not limited to Windows.
Some software get better, some get worse.
I can agree with that.
I read it the same way... Don't use Windows if you want a stable work environment.
Yes, software is getting worse, as education and corporate are getting worse.
Where employees needed to know what they actually were doing in the past, now is mostly auto-filled by IDE's and languages that target other languages, so employees need to know less and less fundamentals.
Which in turn means when a low-level error occurs, either no one knows how to fix it, or the corporate refuses to hire someone who knows how to fix it because they're "over-qualified", and therefore would "cost them too much".
Do you think complexity and scope stayed the same? Or did it increase? Do people have to know more now to have the same level of depth and surrounding knowledge?
I'd say no. While yes for example in game development we've had new tech come up that wasn't there 10-30 years ago, the "how" to do it was on paper decades earlier. It just wasn't feasible to implement with current technology.
Due to IDE's etc, it's significantly easier to just create stuff these days, which for indie etc is extremely good.
It does however also mean that the implementation of tech X will be sub-optimal in most situations, because people don't really understand the underlying tech.
That can be solved in non-corporate situations by asking for help/advice online, or looking it up; but in corporate that'd likely get you branded "overqualified", and they'd fire your ass for focusing development time on improving/fixing something instead of just pushing, pushing, and pushing.
'course there are also programming fields specifically targeting to improve gaps left by IDE's etc, to make them even easier and efficient to use.
So basically: Fuck big corpo, fuck "education" that prepares you for corporate rather than teaches you the fundamentals.
@canpolat The article is written from the perspective of a Windows user. I'm not surprised. Software as a whole does not get worse; there are some software which get worse, and some technology getting in the way. And then there is software which get better, not worse too. If you cherry pick, then you can prove any point you want to proven right; especially on a very wide range of topics like software.
view more: next ›