Software principles

What do you think software should have?


Software has some requirements for me to use it.

This is to discuss as a community what software - including web applications should consider.

投票 (可選) (別通知) (可選)




  • 作爲研究
  • 作爲藝術
  • 作爲探索
  • 作爲工具製作
  • 作爲工藝
  • 作爲工程 ...

There's entire philosophy for how good quality software should be written from typing, structuring, logging, building, releasing, dividing into and combining from services... however, all that depends on particular choices of formats and standards and short-medium-long term goals.

For example, not everyone has to stick to stringent engineering requirements in the research phase -- it's easier to rapidly build a half-baked rocket and try again, than to meticulously design a masterpiece, that lacks a key ability (e.g., ability to come back to land).

And so, wildly different requirements and principles may exist, when thinking of software:

  • As research
  • As art
  • As exploration
  • As tool-making
  • As craft
  • As engineering ...


我同意你關於嘗試一些事情並看看什麼是有效的。 WordPress 就是一個很好的例子。我認爲 wordpress 是非常好的軟件,但很多缺乏經驗的開發人員認爲它很糟糕。但是這些開發人員在他們的生活中並沒有做出任何重要的事情。


有些開發人員認爲 Haskell 和 Clojure 是遊戲規則的改變者,但隨後他們產生了難以理解的醜陋混亂,除了他們的作者之外沒有人能理解,這不是因爲他們的代碼很漂亮或其他人沒有經驗。

In my experience when someone says something is clean or beautiful I have disagreed. I think one man's beauty is another man's garbage 🤣

I agree with you with regard to trying things out and seeing what works. WordPress is a good example of that. I think wordpress is very good software but a lot of subpar inexperienced developers think it's bad. But those developers haven't made anything significant in their lives.

I lean on the tool making and practical realm of software development.

Theres developers who think Haskell and Clojure are game changers but then they produce unreadable ugly messes that nobody but their author can understand and it's not because their code is beautiful or that others are inexperienced.

    : Mindey
    :  -- 
    :  --