Also AI is fine at creating maintainable software, you just have to nag it to and not accept its first attempt at it, and subject it to peer review. This is plenty similar to human developers.
Yeah and they’re typically fired for incompetence, or their startup fails, or their product flounders but that’s okay because the company doesn’t need the product to actually be successful.
Meanwhile, the people who work on actual products that matter have a valid criticism that can’t be dismissed with “some humans don’t even manage to do that.”
Yes, including myself in the past. I’m grateful to be out of that situation.
Probably a vast majority of software written never actually gets interacted with by a user. A vast majority of VC-funded software probably never gets interacted with by a user.
Feels pretty great to work on a product that actually has a user, and that user isn’t actually the product (and that user isn’t being manipulated or exploited). Tiny, tiny minority of the software industry I work in.
That does not sound right, I would guess the most code is in enterprise and business applications and people have to use it no matter how bad it is. I would guess only a tiny fraction of code - besides hobby projects - ends up in the trash without ever having users.
I’m coming from the angle that the majority of software written is internal or B2B rather than B2C, and that most critical B2B software features are hammered out in the first couple of years of development while the remaining development cycles are for niche requests to maintain specific clients who don’t actually know what they want and then don’t end up resubscribing / even using the feature.
If you don’t think about it as a per-software criteria, but per-feature criteria, the vast majority of software features developed are probably completely ignored or even untouched compared to the “critical few”.
Very, very long tail distribution. The most executed 100 lines of code (maybe some Java class init snippet, or some Linux kernel snippet) is probably executed more per day than the per-day bottom 80% of all code combined. Maybe the bottom 99.9% of all code combined.
But that is generally true, most things in the real world have a few common cases and a lot of rare exceptions, so every software dealing with the thing will have a hot path and many additional paths that are rarely or maybe never executed. Or look at large applications like Excel, Photoshop or Blender, they have a million features but most user will probably never use even a single percent of them.
someguynamedq · · focus · HN ↗
We're a few years into a new technology that is still improving. This is a point-in-time critique.
petesergeant · · focus · HN ↗
lolakutty · · focus · HN ↗
lmz · · focus · HN ↗
datsci_est_2015 · · focus · HN ↗
Meanwhile, the people who work on actual products that matter have a valid criticism that can’t be dismissed with “some humans don’t even manage to do that.”
lmz · · focus · HN ↗
datsci_est_2015 · · focus · HN ↗
Probably a vast majority of software written never actually gets interacted with by a user. A vast majority of VC-funded software probably never gets interacted with by a user.
Feels pretty great to work on a product that actually has a user, and that user isn’t actually the product (and that user isn’t being manipulated or exploited). Tiny, tiny minority of the software industry I work in.
danbruc · · focus · HN ↗
datsci_est_2015 · · focus · HN ↗
If you don’t think about it as a per-software criteria, but per-feature criteria, the vast majority of software features developed are probably completely ignored or even untouched compared to the “critical few”.
Very, very long tail distribution. The most executed 100 lines of code (maybe some Java class init snippet, or some Linux kernel snippet) is probably executed more per day than the per-day bottom 80% of all code combined. Maybe the bottom 99.9% of all code combined.
danbruc · · focus · HN ↗