zlacker

>>vimes6+(OP)
The problem that the article doesn't address is that users don't actually seem to mind using terrible software so long as it solves the problem they face better than not using it. I could list literally hundreds of half-assed, broken, bloated applications that I've encountered in the past 25 years that have done very well simply because they kind of solve a problem a bit for the user.

Pushing out something completely broken that doesn't do what it's supposed to is definitely not going to work (duh!). Pushing out an app that solves the problem of managing shopping lists that has a bug where it doesn't work given a particular set of circumstances will still lead to many people using it if the users don't have any alternatives and it's better than using a piece of paper.

Software quality is important to companies because it means that they can spend more time building features instead of fighting fires, and because low quality represents a threat that a competitor could launch a better, less buggy app. Users mostly don't care so long as the app works well enough to do what they need it to do (but they're not dumb, they'll still pick the least buggy option if there are alternatives..).

A high level of quality in software is not important unless you're entering an already well-served market. I wish it was.

>>onion2+85
Personally, I write software that I consider extremely high-quality. The folks that use it, seem to agree. It isn't eye-candy fancy, but it works very well, in a not-in-your-face manner.

The idea is that it does what it says on the tin, without fanfare, robustly, usably, accessibly, localizably, and dependably; providing a user experience that gets out of the way of the user, in a manner that does not surprise the user (even "good" surprises can be an issue. Boring software can be just what the doctor ordered).

In my book, that's the definition of "quality."

I'm working on an application that has been over a year in the making. Its functionality is something that I could have popped out in a month, but making sure of the Quality of the app has necessitated that I spend a great deal more time, "polishing the fenders."

If this were a commercial app (it isn't), then it would have been unbearably expensive for a startup.

I tend to write test harnesses in a day or two, that have similar levels of functionality to this application.

High Quality is significantly more expensive than even "decent, but lesser" quality.

>>ChrisM+Jy
You worked on that app yourself alone, right? If so, I believe your app belongs to a different plane of existence. Programming (one programmer working alone without too much money/time pressure imposed by others) is quiet different from software engineering (multiple programmers, stakeholders, designers, etc., with time and money constraints). Everyone loves programming (and so doing programming usually leads to high-quality and useful products), almost everyone hates software engineering.

>>tkiolp+aC
I would say a lot of this confusion comes from the word engineer. Building software is not like building a bridge. You can't design it first and then go and build it.

So I would say engineer is a poor term, but also the only one we've got for now.

>>datalu+OJ
As I see it, it is more nuanced. When engineer designs a bridge she does a very similar work to a programmer. Programing it is like designing a very complex bridge without constructing it really, because when you finished your design it had been built already.

So it is not exactly like you've said:

> You can't design it first and then go and build it.

You can design, but you cannot build.

A process of building by a design can be paralleled with deploying software -- suddenly there is a hairy real world, not all the hair was considered at the design phase, and either we hack around existing software (i.e. design plans), or call a programmer to redesign.