Break Things !== Move Fast
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Sorry bruce, these boys get a little crazy when they get that -CoPilot/Claude/Cursor- in them...
-
This post did not contain any content.
Hey Farva, what's the name of that design philosophy you like that's got all that goofy shit and no respect for established norms?
-
Sorry bruce, these boys get a little crazy when they get that -CoPilot/Claude/Cursor- in them...
-
Hey Farva, what's the name of that design philosophy you like that's got all that goofy shit and no respect for established norms?
Oh, you mean "move fast and break things"?
-
Oh, you mean "move fast and break things"?
-
This post did not contain any content.
It’s fine to do that if you’re pre-customer and you’re just dabbling with a new idea. Once you are ready to go public though you need to be stable and secure. The big problem is when people try to apply the same development philosophy between established software and pre-alpha software.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Going slow doesn't mean you don't break things either. If you don't want to break things, you need test plans, logging and alerts
-
It’s fine to do that if you’re pre-customer and you’re just dabbling with a new idea. Once you are ready to go public though you need to be stable and secure. The big problem is when people try to apply the same development philosophy between established software and pre-alpha software.
Once you are ready to go public though you need to be stable and secure
Is that really true though? If you have a product people actually want, they'll use it regardless of bugs
-
Sorry bruce, these boys get a little crazy when they get that -CoPilot/Claude/Cursor- in them...
wrote last edited by [email protected]Fun fact: some of those syrup bottles were filled with iced tea. Some. Not all.
-
Once you are ready to go public though you need to be stable and secure
Is that really true though? If you have a product people actually want, they'll use it regardless of bugs
That’s sadly the opinion of a lot of tech companies.
-
Going slow doesn't mean you don't break things either. If you don't want to break things, you need test plans, logging and alerts
wrote last edited by [email protected]Meta's philosophy has bit them before, but they at least do it better than anyone else. Other companies hear the Meta philosophy and their CEOs take that as an excuse to underfund development to the point of constant errors and shipping broken products.
They don't seem to realize that the reason that Meta can operate that way is because they are / were relentlessly focused on figuring out why things broke and then building out new products and systems to let them keep working fast and breaking things without their being a big downstream impact.
They have incredibly robust testing, monitoring, and alerting systems in place for all of their products, including newly developed ones. They found it faster to work in a giant monorepo and share code, but they actually monitored and recognized when it scaled too big and was slowing development down and had teams building out custom version control software and virtual disk utilities to fix this (Microsoft did similar with Git when they moved Windows development to it), and when Meta found that coding in raw JavaScript and HTML was creating scaling difficulties with their app, they built React. Same thing with their customized version of PHP on the backend.
I don't think Meta's impact on the world has been positive, and I don't think they should move fast and break things from a product design and ethics standpoint, but from an engineering standpoint, I do have respect for how they have executed that philosophy, and think that literally everyone else who tries it fails because they view it as a way of cutting short term costs, instead of as a way to identify and build and fix long term infrastructure.
-
Oh, you mean "move fast and break things"?
I live by "Move things and breakfast."
-
This post did not contain any content.
I much prefer "Move slowly and fix things" (I so wish I had thought of that myself but can't remember where I saw it).
-
Meta's philosophy has bit them before, but they at least do it better than anyone else. Other companies hear the Meta philosophy and their CEOs take that as an excuse to underfund development to the point of constant errors and shipping broken products.
They don't seem to realize that the reason that Meta can operate that way is because they are / were relentlessly focused on figuring out why things broke and then building out new products and systems to let them keep working fast and breaking things without their being a big downstream impact.
They have incredibly robust testing, monitoring, and alerting systems in place for all of their products, including newly developed ones. They found it faster to work in a giant monorepo and share code, but they actually monitored and recognized when it scaled too big and was slowing development down and had teams building out custom version control software and virtual disk utilities to fix this (Microsoft did similar with Git when they moved Windows development to it), and when Meta found that coding in raw JavaScript and HTML was creating scaling difficulties with their app, they built React. Same thing with their customized version of PHP on the backend.
I don't think Meta's impact on the world has been positive, and I don't think they should move fast and break things from a product design and ethics standpoint, but from an engineering standpoint, I do have respect for how they have executed that philosophy, and think that literally everyone else who tries it fails because they view it as a way of cutting short term costs, instead of as a way to identify and build and fix long term infrastructure.
The reason Meta could operate that way was because they were a platform for people sending funny texts to each other with no promises of security or privacy.
By the way, even they don't operate like that anymore.
-
The reason Meta could operate that way was because they were a platform for people sending funny texts to each other with no promises of security or privacy.
By the way, even they don't operate like that anymore.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I'm basing that on my experience contracting there ~ 1.5 years ago. They've added new control systems to address things like the GDPR, but they are all still designed to be fully productized parts of their developer framework so that developers don't have to think about them and can still move just as fast with product / feature development.
And while their product market had a little bit to do with it, they quite frankly have buggy software in production for less time than most major SAAS vendors or contract built systems.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The boss wanted me to find savings, so I started unplugging servers.
-
I'm basing that on my experience contracting there ~ 1.5 years ago. They've added new control systems to address things like the GDPR, but they are all still designed to be fully productized parts of their developer framework so that developers don't have to think about them and can still move just as fast with product / feature development.
And while their product market had a little bit to do with it, they quite frankly have buggy software in production for less time than most major SAAS vendors or contract built systems.
As you noticed, they have had a quality assurance structure for way longer than 2 years. They've had it for close to 20 years now.
When they used to have this philosophy, they did always have something broken on their site, and go out of air once in a while. And they did benefit greatly from the speed they got from it, for a while, until it started being harmful.
-
The boss wanted me to find savings, so I started unplugging servers.
Isn't that what Elon did when he bought Twitter? Just randomly started unplugging shit?
-
This post did not contain any content.
At work we have the following quote on the fridge
"A ceramics teacher announced on opening day that he was dividing the class into two groups. All those on the left side of the studio, he said, would be graded solely on the quantity of work they produced, all those on the right solely on its quality. His procedure was simple: on the final day of class he would bring in his bathroom scales and weigh the work of the “quantity” group: fifty pound of pots rated an “A”, forty pounds a “B”, and so on. Those being graded on “quality”, however, needed to produce only one pot — albeit a perfect one — to get an “A”. Well, came grading time and a curious fact emerged: the works of highest quality were all produced by the group being graded for quantity. It seems that while the “quantity” group was busily churning out piles of work – and learning from their mistakes — the “quality” group had sat theorizing about perfection, and in the end had little more to show for their efforts than grandiose theories and a pile of dead clay."
We are a software development company and my reply to this was basically that pot making hasn't changed in a long time, it's basically shaping and firing clay. Software development is comparatively new and has a vastly more dynamic landscape.
Also, the comparison is stupid because we don't write code, realize it was shit and write a new one. If we did business like that, we wouldn't be in business.
