![]() ![]() What you are saying sounds cavalier to me. I think one of the biggest mistakes people make is to prejudge incremental improvements as a hack job, when it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But we are also professionally obligated not to overprivilege it.īesides, if you treat it as a serious project instead of a series of hack jobs, in my experience, very serious incremental improvement still offers a lot of engineering challenge and fun. Not that it's always the right answer, but other answers ought to be scrutinized more closely than developers might like.įrom a professional point of view, it's actually perfectly fair to consider that greenfielding a new project with hot new tech (or even "newer"-but-established tech, my personal favorite choice) is more fun than trudging through old code. ![]() Even if it may take somewhat longer to get there, the integral of value over time often still comes out larger for incremental improvement.ĭevelopers want the default answer to "abandon the old mess and write a new one" (snarkiness fully on purpose) Joel's point is that the default answer ought to be incremental improvement. At no point do you do a "big rewrite", at no point do you have a big step back, at no point do you lose the ability to make forward progress because the new code isn't ready and the old code is deprecated, etc. One of the major points of the Joel article is that the best option is usually one you didn't name incrementally fix the "crappy" codebase. These companies don't have to cover up for poor 5-10 strategy by pretending they are working of some mystical 100 year plan. (Sharing notes are very basic, again the poor handling of simultaneous edits.)Īpple is mentioned as another company with many products - but the overwhelming majority of both specific products and specific features work really well. If business use and collaboration is what they aim to monetize - why such weak and limited features for that? There monetization strategy is not coherently supported by their product implementation. Is this the best a billion dollar company can do? The versioning is based on taking snapshots every couple of hours last time I checked. The thing has no proper handling of simultaneous edits on different devices - leading to conflicts - after all these years with so many programmers there's still no merging algorithm. Often times on iPhone it only syncs new hyperlinks added after I explicitly open the app. The problem is the crap architecture behind its synchronization model that leads to a sub-par user experience. The problem with evernote is not too many features. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |