Nailed it. Things have changed to allow cheaper (interpretable in several ways) developers to create "good enough" software as quickly as possible. If that involves inefficient frameworks, technology, and practices that unlock this, then so be it; if the "best" code is the code that makes money, and money is what corporations prioritize above all else, and there is a way to do that quicker and cheaper, the outcome is obvious and now ubiquitous. Furthermore, if nobody at the top cares, why should anyone on the ground care? The problem compounds.

Priorities are fucked.

[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

If it runs "fast enough" on a completely clean system that would cost the average user $1500, then companies assume that that means that it is a good product.

If you want better software, you have to give developers worse hardware to develop on, and more time to develop.

[–] JordanZ@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

If it runs slow on my laptop then there isn’t a chance it will run at all pushed to the cloud. Our cloud servers are…not great. Single core 1.75gb boxes compared to my 16 core, 32gb laptop. We can do a lot with them though. Just takes a decent amount of tinkering. In some ways the cloud was the best thing for performant code.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

If you want better software, you have to give developers worse hardware to develop on, and more time to develop.

Shhh. There could be application development managers listening... (I'm joking.... Mostly.)

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

inefficient frameworks

I’d like to object to that. Frameworks are often built by dedicated and paid developers, so they tend to be above average in terms of efficiency. But being frameworks, they have to facilitate lots of use cases, so they also tend to be bigger than what you would write if you had 6 months to roll your own. And 36 more months to kill all the worms that got out of the can, to mangle a proverb.