@canpolat The article is written from the perspective of a Windows user. I’m not surprised. Software as a whole does not get worse; there are some software which get worse, and some technology getting in the way. And then there is software which get better, not worse too. If you cherry pick, then you can prove any point you want to proven right; especially on a very wide range of topics like software.
Yeah this article is definitely suffering from a lot of biases in its logic. First off, they are cherry-picking, but there’s also survivorship bias in there.
For an obvious counter example, look at Blender. It’s gotten amazingly good even though it’s gotten more complex over the last 10 years or so.
I’m not sure it’s that simple, really. And I definitely don’t think this is limited to Windows. I agree with other comments that this is mostly related to complexity. The more complex the domain the more difficult it is to implement/maintain a good solution. Delivering the new shiny feature is more exciting for all people (product management, development, users, etc.) than to fix bugs. And if you don’t have the resources/maturity to keep technical debt under control, the software quality will suffer over time. Free software may be the exception here as profit is not always the primary concern.
@canpolat My point was not being limited to Windows, but more that his view is limited to DOS/Windows world, but making general judgements about software. And because Windows and it’s eco system of applications he listed gets worse, he extrapolates this to all software.
Let’s look at Linux, which is probably the biggest software ever and used on every possible way one can imagine. It got better and better, even though it’s extremely big and has a lot of complexity to it and does not want to break compatibility if possible. But I am not saying all software is like that. That’s my point. Some software get better, some get worse.
And because Windows and it’s eco system of applications he listed gets worse, he extrapolates this to all software.
They admit that bias in the article:
[…] since I’ve always been working in the Microsoft tech stack, I use a lot of it. Thus, selection bias clearly is at work here.
Now, I mentioned free software as the exception. I don’t have any data as to how big free software vs proprietary software. But I think his points extends at least to other proprietary software and is not limited to Windows.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programming@programming.dev
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person’s post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you’re posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don’t want to watch videos
@canpolat The article is written from the perspective of a Windows user. I’m not surprised. Software as a whole does not get worse; there are some software which get worse, and some technology getting in the way. And then there is software which get better, not worse too. If you cherry pick, then you can prove any point you want to proven right; especially on a very wide range of topics like software.
I read it the same way… Don’t use Windows if you want a stable work environment.
Yeah this article is definitely suffering from a lot of biases in its logic. First off, they are cherry-picking, but there’s also survivorship bias in there.
For an obvious counter example, look at Blender. It’s gotten amazingly good even though it’s gotten more complex over the last 10 years or so.
I’m not sure it’s that simple, really. And I definitely don’t think this is limited to Windows. I agree with other comments that this is mostly related to complexity. The more complex the domain the more difficult it is to implement/maintain a good solution. Delivering the new shiny feature is more exciting for all people (product management, development, users, etc.) than to fix bugs. And if you don’t have the resources/maturity to keep technical debt under control, the software quality will suffer over time. Free software may be the exception here as profit is not always the primary concern.
@canpolat My point was not being limited to Windows, but more that his view is limited to DOS/Windows world, but making general judgements about software. And because Windows and it’s eco system of applications he listed gets worse, he extrapolates this to all software.
Let’s look at Linux, which is probably the biggest software ever and used on every possible way one can imagine. It got better and better, even though it’s extremely big and has a lot of complexity to it and does not want to break compatibility if possible. But I am not saying all software is like that. That’s my point. Some software get better, some get worse.
They admit that bias in the article:
Now, I mentioned free software as the exception. I don’t have any data as to how big free software vs proprietary software. But I think his points extends at least to other proprietary software and is not limited to Windows.
I can agree with that.