- cross-posted to:
- programming@programming.dev
- youshouldknow@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- programming@programming.dev
- youshouldknow@lemmy.world
An article about how programmers tend to focus too much on aspects of software that are unimportant in the real world, leaving basic functionality deficient. It is aimed mostly at programmers, but if you’re not one, it can still possibly help understand why the software yuo use is so often unpleasant. The current timeouts with the Lemmy front end made me think of posting it here.
This is a good article but posted in the wrong forum. See the YouShouldKnow forum rules on the sidebar.
I’m not a programmer, just a user. But I often notice… things.
Here’s how I’m reading that example: the customer assumed that the “core product” was a given, the devs assumed that the “boring, basic features” weren’t so important, and both assumed to be on the same page, when they weren’t.
Then you got the devs assuming a bunch of potential issues that the client might get in the future, and assumed that it was their job to address them, creating the “imaginary problems”.
I might be wrong so don’t trust me too much, but are you noticing the pattern? Assumers, assumers, assumers everywhere. Always that failure to ask yourself that one tiny question, “do I know this?”.
That fits rather well my grievances (as a user) with software. A lot of times, they boil down to “someone assumed a specific user case, and the assumption was wrong”. Because that’s what happens with assumptions - they are often wrong.
And it also fits the nature of the imaginary problems; they’re usually “what if?” scenarios taken for granted.
Because of that I wonder if “the trunk are imaginary problems, the root are assumptions” wouldn’t be a better analogy.
Speaking on Lemmy I think that the issue here is different. It’s less about imaginary problems or assumptions, and simply about how many dev hours two devs can reasonably pour into a piece of software, to get it polished enough in comparison with a 18yo competitor.