I don't know, there are definitely some rough edges (particularly with the menu bar for some reason - big rewrite there?), but overall I'm quite happy with Golden Gate. "Buggy mess" is some serious hyperbole.
Of the issues they report:
- The centering bugs seem... not very important.
- The Mac User Guide looks fine to me. Shows "for macOS 27."
- Network app?
- Why are you looking at the Mission Control app icon at 20x zoom? And in any case, doesn't it seem reasonable to simplify the traffic light design to a flat circle for an icon that will be displayed very small 99.9% of the time?
- Firefox bugs are bugs in Firefox. (I also keep experiencing the stuck menu bug, but again, Firefox bug.)
- "You can find references to NeXTSTEP, the ancestor of macOS, in its UI!" No, that's not what that means.
- "I have a folder open in the Dock. If I click on another folder, shouldn't that then open?" Yes, and it does.
The centering bugs are important. They show attention to detail. Humans are wired to see such sloppiness as indicative of deeper problems. If they can’t get the easy stuff right, it saps your trust that they got the harder stuff right.
Apple built their entire brand around this ethos, and being willing and able to execute it better than any other brand. Letting it slip undermines the Apple brand, which is the entire company.
They built this brand for hardware, but, personally, I’ve never had this opinion of their software. I mean, being Unix based is better than Windows, but they’ve always been cooking weird UI refreshes or buggy software.
It’s crazy because they have (or had) something like $100bn in cash. Spending 0.5% of that per year on software (development, bug-fixing, performance, and QA) would help tremendously. They’d be insurmountable.
I know “they don’t have to”, but they don’t have to do a lot of things that they do on the hardware side. They choose to.
That's just a classic software development book. What makes its lessons scientific fact?
Also, it's about a singular project that's late.
Not necessarily applicable to dozens of projects with understuffed teams. Adding people to such teams to help, and assigning new people to look and fix bugs nobody cares about now because they're overworked on some "flagship" new features, is a different case.
It wouldn't help much in this case, because of Apple's "functional" team architecture - basically if you add more people to each project then there is no way for them to contribute in a way that adds up to a fulltime job.
rafram · · focus · HN ↗
Of the issues they report:
- The centering bugs seem... not very important.
- The Mac User Guide looks fine to me. Shows "for macOS 27."
- Network app?
- Why are you looking at the Mission Control app icon at 20x zoom? And in any case, doesn't it seem reasonable to simplify the traffic light design to a flat circle for an icon that will be displayed very small 99.9% of the time?
- Firefox bugs are bugs in Firefox. (I also keep experiencing the stuck menu bug, but again, Firefox bug.)
- "You can find references to NeXTSTEP, the ancestor of macOS, in its UI!" No, that's not what that means.
- "I have a folder open in the Dock. If I click on another folder, shouldn't that then open?" Yes, and it does.
- The rest, sure.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
dkarl · · focus · HN ↗
tyre · · focus · HN ↗
It’s crazy because they have (or had) something like $100bn in cash. Spending 0.5% of that per year on software (development, bug-fixing, performance, and QA) would help tremendously. They’d be insurmountable.
I know “they don’t have to”, but they don’t have to do a lot of things that they do on the hardware side. They choose to.
astrange · · focus · HN ↗
Doesn't really help:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month
Also, "bug fixing" tends to add new bugs - any kind of change can cause regressions. It's quite difficult.
coldtea · · focus · HN ↗
That's just a classic software development book. What makes its lessons scientific fact?
Also, it's about a singular project that's late.
Not necessarily applicable to dozens of projects with understuffed teams. Adding people to such teams to help, and assigning new people to look and fix bugs nobody cares about now because they're overworked on some "flagship" new features, is a different case.
astrange · · focus · HN ↗