logoalt Hacker News

stousetyesterday at 8:50 PM1 replyview on HN

> No matter where I look, up and down the stack, across different OSes and tech stacks, there are bugs.

I’m not sure I’d go quite as far as GP, but they did caveat that we often choose not to write software with few bugs. And empirically, that’s pretty true.

The software I’ve written for myself or where I’ve taken the time to do things better or rewrite parts I wasn’t happy with have had remarkably few bugs. I have critical software still running—unmodified—at former employers which hasn’t been touched in nearly a decade. Perhaps not totally bug-free, but close enough that they haven’t been noticed or mattered enough to bother pushing a fix and cutting a release.

Personally I think it’s clear we have the tools and capabilities to write software with one or two orders of magnitude fewer bugs than we choose to. If anything, my hope for AI-coded software development is that it drops the marginal cost difference between writing crap and writing good software, rebalancing the economic calculus in favor of quality for once.


Replies

dylan604yesterday at 9:08 PM

> I’m not sure I’d go quite as far as GP, but they did caveat that we often choose not to write software with few bugs. And empirically, that’s pretty true.

Blame PMs for this. Delivering by some arbitrary date on a calendar means that something is getting shipped regardless of quality. Make it functional for 80% of use, then we'll fix the remaining bits in releases. However, that doesn't happen as the team is assigned new task because new tasks/features is what brings in new users, not fixing existing problems.

show 1 reply