It's a good "smell test" as a developer. It's one of the "secret skills" you earn as someone who knows how to build systems, even though it's anything but secret.
As a case study in open source development, I find it fascinating. In large closed source products, these discussions and their relative dissent is held behind closed doors. I wouldn't be surprised if large parts of YouTube remain Python 2 for a long period of time. But the product owners are aware of these tradeoffs and wouldn't allow public discussion on the subject.
Calibre, from what I've heard has had a historically "bad" codebase. I know nothing about it. But is it the truth?
Calibre is one of those pieces of software where you can "feel" the bad code base as an end user. It's obvious in the way that seemingly simple things are never improved, making changes is obviously hard. It is truly one of the jankiest software systems I have used.
As a user I can't "feel" this bad code at all. Sure, it's has It's own philosphy of things and ocaasional bug like every software, but it's still one of the most stable and productive apps I know. there are regular updates, no big deal breakers and faults coming from the project itself. It simply works and grows, despite being so complex and powerful.
I mean the UX could be better of course, but are there any specific issues that come to mind? I've never felt that way when using Calibre. I always thought of it as a rather smooth piece of software. Unlike some other pieces of libre software, like LibreOffice...
It does a lot of things and it does all of them at least reasonably well. Some parts like reading ebooks has 75 different choices but I don't think anything nor any combination of things does everything it does and any 3 choices to do 75% of what it does would doubtlessly be vastly jankier.
Not liking how something works doesn't make it wrong or broken.
I understand what you mean, but still: it kinda works.
It feels like a vehicle that has been organically modified over the years by a person who only has a welding machine and a cutting torch and a changing taste in what looks good. But hey: it drives.
Of course you have to know the intricate of the machine to make it behave, but isn't that part of it's charms?
> It feels like a vehicle that has been organically modified over the years by a person who only has a welding machine and a cutting torch and a changing taste in what looks good. But hey: it drives.
I have noted this quote and intend to apply it to every large software stack I work on from now on because damn if it isn't true of all of them.
As a case study in open source development, I find it fascinating. In large closed source products, these discussions and their relative dissent is held behind closed doors. I wouldn't be surprised if large parts of YouTube remain Python 2 for a long period of time. But the product owners are aware of these tradeoffs and wouldn't allow public discussion on the subject.
Calibre, from what I've heard has had a historically "bad" codebase. I know nothing about it. But is it the truth?