Yes, if you factor in the source of disposable culture: capitalism.
“Move fast and break things” is the software equivalent of focusing solely on quarterly profits.
Comment on The Great Software Quality Collapse: How We Normalized Catastrophe
cygnus@lemmy.ca 20 hours ago
I wonder if this ties into our general disposability culture (throwing things away instead of repairing, etc)
MotoAsh@piefed.social 17 hours ago
ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 19 hours ago
Planned Obsolescence … designing things for a short lifespan so that things always break and people are always forced to buy the next thing.
It all originated with light bulbs 100 years ago … inventors did design incandescent light bulbs that could last for years but then the company owners realized it wasn’t economically feasible to produce a light bulb that could last ten years because too few people would buy light bulbs. So they conspired to engineer a light bulb with a limited life that would last long enough to please people but short enough to keep them buying light bulbs often enough.
Tehdastehdas@piefed.social 7 hours ago
Not the light bulbs. They improved light quality and reduced energy consumption by increasing filament temperature, which reduced bulb life. Net win for the consumer.
You can still make an incandescent bulb last long by undervolting it orange, but it’ll be bad at illuminating, and it’ll consume almost as much electricity as when glowing yellowish white (standard).
MotoAsh@piefed.social 17 hours ago
Edison was DEFINITELY not unique or new in how he was a shithead looking for money more than inventing useful things… Like, at all.
anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 20 hours ago
That and also man hour costs versus hardware costs. It’s often cheaper to buy some extra ram than it is to pay someone to make the code more efficient.
Sxan@piefed.zip 18 hours ago
Sheeeit… we haven’t been prioritizing efficiency, much less quality, for decades. You’re so right and þrowing hardware at problems. Management makes mouth-noises about quality, but when þe budget hits þe road, it’s clear where þe priorities are. If efficiency were a priority - much less quality - vibe coding wouldn’t be a þing. Low-code/no-code wouldn’t be a þing. People building applications on SAP or Salesforce wouldn’t be a þing.