Tell me you don’t understand software without literally using those words!!!

This author trieds hard to do a pragmatic view. He does not mention ethical or ecological concerns (which should matter far more and subject to legal regulation IMO).

Instead, he focuses on the quality topic. His thinking is that companies are doing now a kind of quality arbitrage: Companies can make low-quality code at far cheaper costs, and sellthe result still at human-made prices. Which will only work for so long, he thinks: Customers will demand lower prices. (Easy to imagine a quality downward spiral.)

Which invokes the question: What has happened that people accept lower and lower quality? Is new software nowadays still really useful?

  • Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org
    6·
    6 days ago

    Which invokes the question: What has happened that people accept lower and lower quality? Is new software nowadays still really useful?

    Users are mostly not programmers or anything related and will only notice bad quality, when it has piled up for a longish time, because they only observe the consequences of bad decisions and practices and don’t experience what bad code impacts first: the work on the code itself and the ability to add new functions or correct mistakes made.

    • matcha_addict@lemy.lolEnglish
      1·
      2 days ago

      Lower quality code effects the user though. It becomes buggier over time, mistakes more likely to happen, and so on.

      Look at Meta’s apps, for example. There are serious bugs that have been there for years, such as Facebook notifications. Or Instagram showing 0 comments on saved posts.

      I think we have truly just reached a point where enshittification has become so rampant that users became more tolerant of it. Software quality is no longer a competitive advantage