So silly. Like, was the gcc toolchain made with cold indifference? Were linux and git made with Scandinavian longing? Was emacs made with a certain sense of ennui?
I think I'll need to start saying I write code with American cynicism or Californian gusto.
It's like the widespread humanistic art style that 99% companies have adopted in the 2010s to show they are not another faceless corporation, but instead are a friendly business where you matter.
Makes me think of a Stepford kindergarten.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-03/fda-decla...
He’ll never tell you. He’ll just stare sullenly at you on a crisp November evening through the frost-coated glass of your remote log cabin until slowly he’ll raise one hand bearing his middle finger, without breaking eye contact or changing his expression.
“Pass that along to Jensen Huang” he’ll whisper. Then with a surge of the creeping blizzard outside your window, he’ll be gone forever.
Oh... Just my arty ex.
You're familiar with Richard Stallman, yes? :-)
So my goal is to create an efficient tool that gets out of one's way, rather than a hipstery "software that you want to cuddle with" or other nonsense. I am designing a toilet. I couldn't even tell you what my actual toilet looks like, but it gets the job done.
"Lovable" is also toxic to product developers. Any usage that doesn't build a relationship starts to look like a failure. If you're making tax software, people aren't going to love it no matter what you do. Even if you manage to build that "loving" relationship with the customer, do you really want to invest that deeply maintaining it with every customer (including the demanding ones)? Remember that if they love your software, they're now invested in you not changing it and they'll expect the norms of that relationship in all interactions with you. If you fail to meet those expectations, some of them will go out of their way to talk about it. If you do meet those expectations, their "love" may actually scare others away from using it to avoid being associated with them. Think of the stereotypes about people who like Vim, Rust, or Excel. Maybe that's what you want, but it shouldn't be a universal development goal.
If the people building the product view building and using it as a chore, it’s going to show.
So I took “love” as their brand of Amazonian “customer obsession”.
There needs to be someone (often a founder, head of product, etc) who is the visionary for how the product can be awesome for customers. And hopefully that leader is able to infuse the entire product development experience with that energy.
If you want to build an MVP im all for it. It is 100% throw away. Don't try to "add a feature" don't try to "expand" ... You cut corners in design and spec Im gonna cut them in engineering. Let's all take the lessons we learned and build something good after.
Minimum viable product still means it's a viable product. If it's 100% throwaway, it wasn't viable.
MVP lauches and the PM is at my desk. Hey we need these 5 features that you told me I would want but I swore would never be in the product.
MVP launches and the PM is at my desk. Hey this thing that I would have found if I took a paper prototype out on the street and showed it to random people would have been apparent ... well now we need that.
Hell I have told PM's that their print on demand product needed a dirty words filter. They told me I was wrong. Guess what the first feature was post launch in a panic. It's not like I haven't said "If you're launching in Germany you need to take checks" and then had someone come back when the sales numbers were dismal till they started taking checks. (And dear god someone tell me that Germany is past this).
Candidly most MVP's miss the minimum and viable because the people who are defining those things are making guesses with out doing a lot of research. Ethnography, Usability, all these things are much cheaper than development, and yet we dont do them...
Fuck it were doin it live.
In other words it's "love able" as distinct from "loved".
But yo pick on the L is to miss the point. M implies "not there yet" whereas C indicates "its all you need.".
I have a small product which does 1 job really well. Every 5 years or so I give it a visual overhaul. Every couple years someone suggests a feature which would make it better, but equally lead it into a much more complex space.
Its Simple, Complete, and has been used by some folks for over 20 years. To make it "better" would destroy what makes it "Lovable".
Every day here on HN we get announcements of new things. Most are starting out and of course there are lots of suggestions, which the author usually agrees with. Clearly they're showing M. Usually iys not really V for one or more reasons.
So to me at least MVP and SLC are very different concepts. Kudos to developers who strive for simplicity, completeness and elegance.
If it's "not there yet", it's not Viable.