Comments by "yapdog" (@yapdog) on "Continuous Delivery"
channel.
-
73
-
55
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
All of this, Dave! Once again you're telling my story.
For so many years that I'm afraid to count, I've been the sole developer on an OS for Creators. I did have a clear objective: a platform that allowed me to easily build UIs and features as easily as creating drawings; this was to be a proprietary tool solely for my content. However, it took me far too long to realize that I, as an artist AND developer, was a very poor target. I'd over-engineered the platform so much that it was far too easy to lose sight of my objectives.
I realized that I needed external targets, so I tapped long-time users of a CG application that I'd developed in the late 1990's - early 2000's. That was the ticket!
Even though the feedback that I'd gotten contained nothing really new, it gave me clarity. I redefined the product objectives, swept out a lot of over-engineered subsystems, then approached the design from the view of myself purely as creator. Yes, not just a user or "end user," but a person creating art. This changed the entire paradigm of the OS. Simplified it. And made it the most flexible piece of software that I'd ever seen!
Seems like a simple thing, that realization, but only in hindsight. It was a long and arduous journey, but it looks like I'll be able to release in Q4 of this year. So, to whomever read all of this, pay close attention to this video in particular. Whether you're an individual or part of a team, it will save you a world of hurt. Hell, I wish I could have seen it a decade ago....... 😔
9
-
9
-
I really appreciated this discussion👍 I would offer that the issue with Excel is actually not that it's "low-code." It's a specific solution that became more and more generalized over time, while the developers only focused on added functionality via formulae/scripts not user data access. You've given the proof in your Word example.
I would also differ with you on your assessment that low-code as a generalized solution is a dead end. The reason you have that view is that you're programmers who love to write code. Further, the developers of those systems are just like you, but may also have a kind of condescending view of the user. Let's be real, though: all any of us are doing is manipulating data, computing values, and calling functions, all in some specific order. No more, no less. It's the layers of abstraction that make us feel superior, specifically achieving all of this through text interfaces. Because of this, we've made the development word a complete and utter mess. (webdev, anyone?)
So, the problem isn't low-code. We (programmers) are the problem, over-glorifying what it is we actually do because we are in charge of the interface. Myself? I'm a programmer (3-decades of experience) who doesn't love to code. But I am highly visual. For the past several years I've been developing (in C) a generalized visual development system for people like me... visual people. However, it's malleable enough to allow for writing code in any language, even custom domain-specific ones. Maybe I'm arrogant in believing this, but I do believe that my visual development (non-bare metal) OS will change your mind. We'll see.......... (coding)...........
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
Here we go again, another new term to label old stuff. 🙄Here's the deal. What we're all doing is developing software for users; we provide environments for work/entertainment/play. Platform engineers are just software engineers developing the SOS (same old sh!t) over and over again, but combining them in different ways. We just keep creating layers of abstraction to define niches and to differentiate ourselves, but the user-facing result is always the same. Always.
Having said that, the platform I've been developing over the past several years actually does something truly different for users: allowing non-programmers to define those work/entertainment/play environments, and it does so in a novel way (I'll shame more when we're closer to release). It's a tough job (<--understatement); I don't get to fall back on developer-speak like "it's user error" or "RTFM" since I can't force workflows upon them. Design & development on such a platform require a constant focus on the user, understanding the types of things they might try... that can be maddening, but I'm one of 'em, so.....
Anyway, thanks for covering this, Dave, m'man
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
Accountability may be an anathema to you guys with regards to these models, but from a user's perspective, lack of accountability is why software, in general, sucks. Again, that's from a user's perspective. For my part as a developer, I'm building Accountability into my model. The key question here is: Accountability to whom? Not to managers, but to users. At least, in my model that's how it works.
As I said previously, Dave, I'll hit you up when we're ready to announce. I think you'll be skeptical of my model, but I'll most definitely win you over when you see it in action. And if I'm wrong, you'll get a free beer out of it 😅 Deal?
4
-
Yet another truly informative video! Thanx, Dave :^)
I equate software architecture to writing novels. There are plotters and there are pantsers. Pantsers start the story at the beginning and write forward. The story goes wherever is most interesting, ideally; i.e. the story is "discovered." Sounds wrong-headed and can lead to disaster but can be useful on small projects (I wouldn't take that approach, tho). Plotters can be thought of as software architects/designers, combining elements (characters, places, objects, relationships, etc.) to define the flow of the story from a bird's eye view. However, in my experience, this can also get people into trouble if the writer views the plot as a "bible" from which never to deviate.
In this sense, plot is design, but the various elements (e.g. libraries, formats, protocols, etc.) used in the plot define architecture
In writing and development, I am what I call a jumper. I start with a rough plan with the objectives/outputs in mind, defining the necessary components to the best of my understanding at the time. Then I move forward from the core AND backward from the outputs making modifications to the design and architecture as needed. This may sound insane, but it's necessary to never lose sight of the objectives AND the constraints.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1