5 ms·
I call it the Intent-Implement-Quality problem. Software factories can implement anything given a one-liner requirement. That one-liner requirement can be a co
by sathish316 2mo ago
I call it the Intent-Implement-Quality problem.
Software factories can implement anything given a one-liner requirement. That one-liner requirement can be a complete app/product, epic, feature, bug, design change or refactoring. But these one liner requirements are requirements coming from a human who has an intent or requirement or direction for the product to evolve in mind. Can Software factories manufacture intent that reflects the exact requirements of the person using it or their vision of how the product or software should evolve?
Implementation in any language is as easy as generating a summary for an LLM. If coding is only math and there is only one way to translate a requirement into an implementation, the problem boils down to just providing or verifying generated intent. But, there is definitely more than one way to implement a thing and one of the ways leads to a design and architecture that is coherent with rest of the system, design and architecture that is extensible and evolves, code that you can keep in your head when you want to change things next time or tomorrow, software that can serve millions of users and securely guarantee millions of dollars of revenue. There is a combinatorial explosion of ways and the one right way is also subjective of the person and the problem. Software factories can of course improve Quality by generating more unit tests, more integration tests, fix code violations, generate Proof of work as videos, screenshots etc, but there is no feedback loop or test suite to verify and correct the other subjective notions of Quality.
- sathish316 2mo agoIf you’re working on an app or software that has few users, no revenue or minimal revenue, tolerance to bugs is higher and just another Claude prompt away, Software factories are a perfect fit. Most personal software or hobby software or 0-1 yet-to-find-PMF startups belong in this category. You can even take a stand that you’ll never look at the code and just ship. This is a perfect equilibrium for a Software factory, where the only input or feedback is a one-liner/specced requirement and the only output is outcome of whether the one-liner requirement worked or not. For almost any other software that does not fit this criteria, software factories are yet to solve the Intent and Subjective Quality problem.
- aleph_minus_one 2mo ago> If you’re working on an app or software that has few users, no revenue or minimal revenue, tolerance to bugs is higher and just another Claude prompt away, Software factories are a perfect fit. Most personal software or hobby software or 0-1 yet-to-find-PMF startups belong in this category. I would rather claim that for my personal/hobby software, I apply a much higher quality standard than for the software that I write at work. Believe me: I would love to apply the same high (or even higher) standard at work, too. The problem rather is that it is a very common situation that bosses actively prohibit me from rocking the boat too much. If I make (I think typically good) suggestions, I often get very stern reactions. At work, elegance is not celebrated - just implement the tasks of users who don't care about quality or elegance.
- andrewljohnson 2mo agoYou either need to quit or keep your head down, I can’t tell which.
- taneq 2mo agoIf you need to actively keep your head down, you need to quit. Doesn’t matter whether ‘the problem’ is the employer, the employee, both, or neither. They’re a bad fit for each other.
- eru 2mo agoKeep your head down, while you look for alternatives. No need to pre-emptively quit, if you can coast and collect a paycheck.
- podocarp 2mo agoI don't think so? It's very common in both large companies and small startups where pragmatism has a higher priority than so called elegance or whatever you call it the "artisan" feel. It's varying shades of "perfect is the enemy of good", where different cultures and business environments dictate how much a manager is going to tolerate your proposed refactoring. At least that's what I got from the parent lost.
- canpan 2mo agoIt's even worse: Customer says I want X! One or more of the following can be true: - Customer really wants X - Customer doesnt actually need X at all - Customer wants Y not X but couldnt express himself - Customer B and C do NOT want X at all - Customer is just messing with you for no reason
- podocarp 2mo agoAlso quite common for me is like someone says X is good (usually a PM) but common sense says it's crap, and when you actually ask the user they also say it's crap. If only LLMs could email a bunch of people for second opinions.
- shermantanktop 2mo agoOr fire the PM?
- NamlchakKhandro 2mo agoask Ed Zitron how well that statistically pans out
- RugnirViking 2mo agoPM = politics maestro They will out-corporate you. Better to be friends with them, or failing that, move from under them
- stevefan1999 2mo agoOr fuck them, fuck the managers, fuck the c-suites (intentionally decapitalized), go for a flat organizational structure like Valve where you have no one to report to (well maybe Gabe Newell or the team leader for that project occasionally), but the culture is that everyone can manage themselves organically rather than having hierarchies and forced, useless reportings
- 2mo ago
- songhonglei1985 2mo ago[flagged]
- daniel-smid 2mo ago[dead]
- daniel-smid 2mo ago[flagged]
- high_na_euv 2mo ago>If coding is only math and there is only one way to translate a requirement into an implementation, t What?? It is definitely not true
- sathish316 2mo agoI’m of course saying there are infinite ways to implement a non-trivial feature.