Craft software that makes people feel something

(rapha.land)

Show context

jamesgill ◴[11 Dec 25 18:34 UTC] No.46235137[source]▶

I agree with the title, but disagree with this:

"When programming becomes repetitive, the odds of you creating something that makes people go “wow” are reduced quite a bit. It isn’t a rule, of course. You need to be inspired to make inspiring software."

The purpose of software for other people is not to make them go 'wow'; it's to help them with their jobs to be done. That's it. The software is always in service to the job the user wants to get done. Can that make them go 'wow'? Sure, but you can't..aim for 'wow'. That's the wrong goal.

As far as 'inspiration' goes, I'm with Stephen King: "Amateurs sit and wait for inspiration, the rest of us just get up and go to work."

For those that might disagree (hey, it's HN), I would ask: how do you know when 'wow' occurs? Here's a clue: 'wow' can only happen when something else occurs first. That 'something else' is described above.

replies(3): >>46235203 #>>46235384 #>>46236964 #

9rx ◴[11 Dec 25 18:50 UTC] No.46235384[source]▶

>>46235137 #

> The purpose of software for other people is not to make them go 'wow'; it's to help them with their jobs to be done.

Aside from where you've only duplicated something that already exists (in which case why bother?), what kind of software would you be able to create to help me do my job that wouldn't also make me go 'wow'?

Any part of my job that I lack tools to help me with are the parts that seem impossible to have the tools for, so when you defy that understanding, 'wow' is inevitable.

replies(1): >>46236128 #

1. Yokohiii ◴[11 Dec 25 19:38 UTC] No.46236128[source]▶

>>46235384 #

> Aside from where you've only duplicated something that already exists (in which case why bother?)

If we had stopped reiterating on the wheel our cars would drive on wooden logs.

replies(1): >>46236275 #

2. 9rx ◴[11 Dec 25 19:53 UTC] No.46236275[source]▶

>>46236128 (TP) #

Of course, a wheel doesn't duplicate a wooden log. The wheel most certainly 'wow'-ed people when it was first introduced.

But if you release a wheel today, same as any other wheel you can already buy, don't expect much fanfare.

replies(1): >>46236490 #

3. Yokohiii ◴[11 Dec 25 20:11 UTC] No.46236490[source]▶

>>46236275 #

My point (and that of the previous poster) is that "wow" isn't required as an initial property to do anything. Pretty sure the dude who made the first wheel just did something that was useful for him in that situation. He didn't think how he could do something to impress his peers. He maybe wasn't even aware he made the first wheel or something innovative.

Also if I'd dive into how F1 wheels are made, I'd expect I learn stuff that is fascinating and far from boring.

replies(1): >>46236545 #

4. 9rx ◴[11 Dec 25 20:15 UTC] No.46236545{3}[source]▶

>>46236490 #

The question asked — paraphrasing to include the context you have added — is how you could create something like a wheel, or a novel adaptation on the wheel like an F1 wheel, without sparking 'wow'? It just doesn't seem impossible. You may not come with the intent to create 'wow', but it is going to happen anyway.

replies(1): >>46236737 #

5. Yokohiii ◴[11 Dec 25 20:32 UTC] No.46236737{4}[source]▶

>>46236545 #

I am confused on your use of "duplicating".

I think straight duplication is quite unlikely. You even say it's inevitable. Which is also confusing. Most code written is probably quite unremarkable, yet useful. Usefulness is a dominating factor, wow has a lot of depends.

replies(1): >>46236766 #

6. 9rx ◴[11 Dec 25 20:34 UTC] No.46236766{5}[source]▶

>>46236737 #

> I think straight duplication is quite unlikely.

Is it? There are many different people selling wheels that are all pretty much indistinguishable from one another. The first one no doubt brought the 'wow'. But when the second person showed up with the same thing, what 'wow' would there be?

Our entire system of trade assumes that duplication occurs as an intrinsic piece, with the only defining difference in that duplication is the effort to make the same thing for cheaper. Otherwise known as competition. Are you suggesting that doesn't happen?

replies(1): >>46237836 #

7. Yokohiii ◴[11 Dec 25 22:02 UTC] No.46237836{6}[source]▶

>>46236766 #

I am stuck with your phrasing. Duplication is for me something like cloning or a perfect copy. Which I think is unusual. You will find a chinese phone that looks like an iPhone but is totally different and magnitudes cheaper. What you talk about is probably more like mimicking. Offering something that people are used to to get into the market. But every competitor will eventually look for things to make a brand or product different. What is inevitable, is to diverge from mimicry. So duplicating is an evolutionary process itself.

↑