In Search of Organic Software An Article by Pirijan Ketheswaran pketh.org Two different kinds of farms can grow vegetables. One is a factory farm built for scale, and the other takes the time to grow more expensive but healthier plants without pesticides. Will everyone appreciate the difference? Of course not, but the latter plants are labelled ‘organic’ to give us the information and the choice, so that those of us who do care can make better decisions. So maybe we should have ‘organic’ software as well, made by companies that: Are not funded in such a way where the primary obligation of the company is to 🎡 chase funding rounds or get acquired (so bootstrapping, crowdfunding, grants, and angel investment are okay) Have a clear pricing page Disclose their sources of funding and sources of revenue softwarebusinessfarming
How I Build An Article by Pirijan Ketheswaran pketh.org In 2014, I wrote about my belief that design and engineering are best when tightly woven together. That’s truer now than ever. If I’m feeling confident, I’ll jump right into my text editor…From here, more functionality is added and the code is tweaked until the feature looks and feels right to me. Whether it’s something simple like this, or prototyping a new interaction like multi-connect, there’s no substitute for designing with real code. In rare cases when I have ideas or plans that I’m less confident about, it’s time to break out the paper, pens, and markers, Because the Kinopio interface elements and aesthetic are full-grown, I almost never use traditional design software anymore. makinginteractioninterfaces
Why Software is Slow and Shitty An Article by Pirijan Ketheswaran pketh.org Roman empire militaryBuilding is never a straight lineConversations, not commandments Planning doesn't make for better software softwareperformance
Feature parity An Article martinfowler.com Whilst Feature Parity often sounds like a reasonable proposition, we have learnt the hard way that people greatly underestimate the effort required, and thus misjudge the choice between this and the other alternatives. For example even just defining the 'as is' scope can be a huge effort, especially for legacy systems that have become core to the business. Most legacy systems have 'bloated' over time, with many features unused by users (50% according to a 2014 Standish Group report) as new features have been added without the old ones being removed. Workarounds for past bugs and limitations have become 'must have' requirements for current business processes, with the way users work defined as much by the limitations of legacy as anything else. Rebuilding these features is not only waste it also represents a missed opportunity to build what is actually needed today. These systems were often defined 10 or 20 years ago within the constraints of previous generations of technology, it very rarely makes sense to replicate them 'as is'. softwarefeaturesrepair