←back to thread

1113 points Bluestein | 6 comments | | HN request time: 3.552s | source | bottom
Show context
lairv ◴[] No.41278203[source]
I use it to inspect video frames by frames, particularly being able to go back one frame. VLC doesn't support it, this thread about the feature is hilarious https://forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?t=120627
replies(19): >>41278382 #>>41278499 #>>41278639 #>>41278719 #>>41279342 #>>41279364 #>>41279561 #>>41279827 #>>41279842 #>>41279920 #>>41280125 #>>41281214 #>>41281733 #>>41282953 #>>41283275 #>>41284169 #>>41287180 #>>41289348 #>>41289743 #
j1elo ◴[] No.41278719[source]
Wow those answers are indeed funny. I agree that as an OSS dev/maintainer, it's easy to fall on the vice of over-generalization and crusade for the perfect solution, and it feels that's exactly what happened there.

> this feature is algorithmically impossible

> You're just looking at one specific video, not the general problem.

> is not generally possible.

As a fellow multimedia dev, man, who cares? Sometimes we forget that software ought to be useful, not hypothetical ideals of truth. Just implement the feature for those codecs that support it and which probably are in the 98% percentile of what users actually use, regardless of the damned "general case".

Or accept and announce shamelessly that you don't have either the knowledge or the development resources to tackle such a complex feature. But excuses about not being possible for absolutely every possible codec in a completely generic way is just denying that the world is just a chaotic and dirty place where things are not ideal nor perfect. Just give your users a real-world solution (or rejection).

replies(7): >>41279461 #>>41279707 #>>41280296 #>>41280441 #>>41281134 #>>41281153 #>>41284201 #
ziml77 ◴[] No.41279461[source]
I notice a lot of devs try to deny the chaos of the world. It's almost like the code is where they go to hide from things that can't be cleanly and unambiguously expressed.

I don't know how they get away with that though. In the coding work that I do, I'm constantly dealing with rules that have exceptions on top of exceptions. I just need to special-case some things, because the alternative is not delivering what the business needs.

replies(5): >>41279543 #>>41280014 #>>41280132 #>>41280150 #>>41280398 #
jbverschoor ◴[] No.41279543[source]
And this is exactly the problem when these devs are in charge of creating systems that actually do matter. They will not support edge cases, problems in a process, etc.
replies(1): >>41280141 #
vharish ◴[] No.41280141[source]
I mean.. can you show anyone piece of software or hardware or for that matter any man made creation that solves for all edge cases?
replies(1): >>41280621 #
1. jbverschoor ◴[] No.41280621[source]
But it’s just simple things, like allowing an override of a status field.

Or using a status field to check something is ok or not, instead of always checking the data itself.

People make wrong assumptions, and requirements change. Don’t make it all rigid that you always need to implement every case

replies(1): >>41280815 #
2. borski ◴[] No.41280815[source]
Everything is a “simple thing” unless you’re the one implementing it. Things that seem simple on the surface rarely are, especially long-term.
replies(1): >>41282264 #
3. jbverschoor ◴[] No.41282264[source]
I’d say it has to do with not willing to duplicate data. On paper forms, it is simple. Why can’t it be in a digital form?
replies(1): >>41286977 #
4. borski ◴[] No.41286977{3}[source]
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-software-development-task-esti...
replies(1): >>41290507 #
5. jbverschoor ◴[] No.41290507{4}[source]
That article means: inexperience and unprofessional. Sounds about right.
replies(1): >>41292296 #
6. borski ◴[] No.41292296{5}[source]
If you’ve never written software that needed to be used by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people, then sure, it could seem that way.