i want smaller applications with fewer updates made by people who are paid more to produce less code and i'm not kidding
in reply to Eniko Fox

Sensitive content

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. reshared this.

in reply to V

Sensitive content

This entry was edited (Tuesday, June 2, 2026, 5:06 PM)
in reply to Eniko Fox

But then the boss would have fewer people to manage, and be unable to justify his job. Most software changes are about employment for engineers, not necessity. Grr.

As a software engineer I want computer languages and frameworks that stay stable for decades rather than have a new release every year that obsoletes old programs and requires a rewrite. But I don't get to have that 🙁.

#software #softwaredevelopment

in reply to Badtux the Snarky Penguin

@Badtux the Snarky Penguin @Eniko Fox I've written software that was "finished" only to have to update it because an underlying library introduced a breaking change. I hate that.

reshared this

in reply to Badtux the Snarky Penguin

@Badtux the Snarky Penguin @Eniko Fox I actually had to re-write large chunks of a program I wrote for a client because Haskell's ncurses wrapper just kind of... stopped being a thing.

Fortunately, I never liked ncurses to begin with and had abstracted much of it away. The code I'd written was fairly easy to retrofit into brick instead.

in reply to Eniko Fox

Product: What's this ticket for, this one you're working on, it doesn't seen to be delivering any new feature? Why are we doing it?

Devs: It lets us delete a couple of thousand lines of no-longer-used code. Which will then no longer need to be maintained, tested, documented, ect ect.

Product: Great! That's what we like to hear!

in reply to Eniko Fox

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

Hear hear! 👏

I'm pretty tired of downloading some 100 MB every week for Signal desktop for minor changes. And did you see how the changelog in /usr/share/doc looks like for Signal-desktop on Linux each time ? Yeah, whatever, Signal! 🤬 #signal

in reply to Eniko Fox

Currently, my favourite app is Out-Run, and I think it's basically been abandoned by the developer.

apps.apple.com/ie/app/out-run/…

(Yes, that's probably not great for security vulnerability reasons.. 😬)

in reply to Eniko Fox

This reminds me of one of the favorite apps on my phone: Animated Knots by Grog.

apps.apple.com/de/app/animated…
It has detailed explanations of almost 200 knots, and animations on how to tie all of them.

It hasn’t been updated for years, because it’s basically done. I bought it once for the price of a coffee, and now I just use it whenever I need something more than my 3 standard knots.

(I have dyslexia-but-for-ropes, and this is the only way I can learn new knots.)

in reply to Eniko Fox

The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please go to the original post.

@pouncy_panda i instantly knew the perfect image for this and knew it had to be done (i used deathgenerator.com)
in reply to Eniko Fox

the concept, way back, was The Subroutine, a compact self-contained and hopefully tested thing with inputs and outputs, as had happened in Electronics shortly before where an ocean of incompatible constructs became IC's with standard values, infinitely combine-able. This was the notion in Unix, a tinker-toy toolbox, programmable LEGO, but the tech for all this pipeworks was too much for the early home computers, so you got MSDOS instead, and MS lock-ins on "compatible components" (for your security of course)

Linux then brought the clunky unix mindset to the PC, but quickly fell into copying The Everything App like the Big Boys, trademark logos, t-shirts, booth-babes, their difference was at least they intended to be 'interoperable' between these apps, like the MS or IOS consoles, but it was still between monolithic EverythingBut Apps.

How nice it would be to have one (favourite) editor you know backwards and forwards and EVERY textbox you see uses it, not WordStar ☺️

This entry was edited (today, 1:32 AM)
in reply to Eniko Fox

We were once taught in computer science to attempt to refine our code to tight, elegant, complete solutions. Very small chunks of software that were complete and conceptually clear. Early on, that was required because the memory and storage resources were strictly limited. When did we decide that just because the limits were off, our coding should be complex, nasty, unreadable, and should suck?

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.