Hacker News Reader

Comment by halapro | Hacker News Reader

The worst part is that every company with a tasks product works right towards Jira. Compare what GitHub issues were in 2014 to what they are today: https://github.com/features/issues

and they keep. adding. redundant. features

View on HN

I'm 90% those features were among the top issues on github/github repo back when it used to be there. The joke was always about how barebones github issues were was a common thing troughout the 2010s. Once they added that whole "Projects" thing, the joke became how complicated it is.

The engineer is not the target user

> The engineer is not the target user

yes, but:

1. not anymore

2. That's the price you have to pay if you want the tool you like to have corporate buy-in

It seems like bad engineering culture though. If it was well engineered, then there would be simple concepts as a basis, upon which the product builds higher level, more complex things, that those targeted users think they need. Then there would be one API that is for the simple concepts, that lets people simply have tasks and get things done, potentially building a simpler UI on top of that API. The product itself could have a simple mode or higher level concepts mode.

If you read other people's comments here though, this is not what Jira APIs look like. Instead you have cruft built upon cruft, ever increasing in complexity, and seemingly no engineer was allowed to look back and fix things, find good concepts to represent things on a lower level. Lets build more features, accumulating more cruft on top, instead of fixing a broken design.

> That's the price you have to pay if you want the tool you like to have corporate buy-in

So to get buy in to the tool you like, first you need to make it into a tool you don’t like? Why would you go after buy in to that tool?

The world does not revolve around you

Reply on news.ycombinator.com