Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by csnover | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

csnover

The answer is “because the author is engaged in rosy retrospection”.

The Atlantic, in 2013: Why is software so slow?[0]

Mac Observer, in 2015: OS X quality is declining.[1]

Some random programmer blog, in 2015: “Worse Is Better” 25 Years Later – Have We Gotten Lazy?[2]

Information Week, in 2009: Paging AIM: Why Does Software Always Get Worse?[3]

MIT Technology Review, in 2002: Why software is so bad.[4]

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/09/why-is-...

[1] https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/mac-experts-weigh-in...

[2] https://spin.atomicobject.com/worse-is-better-vs-right-thing...

[3] https://www.informationweek.com/it-leadership/paging-aim-why...

[4] https://www.technologyreview.com/2002/07/01/40875/why-softwa...

View on HN

I largely agree with you, but worry that this is poor evidence? Could both be worse now than a decade ago, and as much worse from two decades ago.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.[0] The burden of proof is on the author to demonstrate that software quality is actually worse now. If they want to refute the argument that they are engaged in rosy retrospection, then they should offer more than a handful of personal anecdotes that demonstrate nothing.

Google Drive lost some data that one time in 2023? Cool. In the 1990s, Windows uptime was measured in BSODs per day, and data loss was predicated on how frequently you remembered to hit Ctrl+S before your computer crashed.

Your bank has a frustrating mobile UI? Cool. Ten years ago, they probably didn’t even have a mobile UI, or if it did, people were also complaining that it sucked[1].

Security is worse now because people don’t update their dependencies so leak user data? Cool. The largest known data breach to date happened in 2013[2]. Ten years before that, the entire internet nearly collapsed because of a computer worm[3].

Is any of this a more valid rebuttal to the original author? No. They’re just more anecdotes.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

[1] https://reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/30psm7/any_ban...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/03/technology/yahoo-hack-3-b...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_Slammer

This is still a sophists tactic, though? As you point out, it is not a valid rebuttal.

Can be fun discussion. And, again, I largely agree. I would be interested in the actual topic, as well.

Some metrics that could be indicative? QA team sizes. QA cycles. Features added versus features improved. Lines of code added. Size of features added.

It is frustrating, as lines of code is an easily gamed metric, it still correlates very well with number of bugs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com