Applications that are “on their own mind” or what is “Opinionated Software”
So, gentlemen, please a minute of attention!
Recently, discussing some technological or architectural issues, in disputes I often had to mention that “this is just an opinion”, and to give a link to an article from Getting Real called Make Opinionated Software (you can skip the link below, the article itself).
This is a simple and interesting concept that I would like to convey to everyone, and especially to project managers whose teams have fire in their eyes and foam in their eyes (or vice versa?) Inventing their own bikes, frameworks, platforms, trying to do everything at once, for all occasions - everything that seems to be very necessary, necessary, and “without it in any way”.
')
At one time, too (and more than once) having passed tests in bicycle construction, I have long held the same opinion as the “37 signals”. And they tell us:
Your application must take a definite position.
Some people think that software should be universal. They say that it is too presumptuous for a developer to limit functionality or simply ignore the features that they are asked to do. They tell us that software should always be as flexible as possible.
We think it's a shit. The best software is the one that contains the vision . The best software takes an unambiguous position ( "takes side" - approx. Lane.). When someone uses your program, he expects from her not only incredible features and functionality, he waits for a special approach. He is waiting for a special vision . Decide what your vision is and move forward with it.
And remember - if someone does not like your vision, then for them there are still many other visions. Do not try to chase the part of the people that you will never make happy anyway.
A wonderful example is the original wiki design. Ward Cunningham and Co. deliberately cut out a huge part of the features that were previously considered to be absolutely necessary for the collective work with documents. Instead of (explicitly) visually marking with attributes each change by the name of the author, they simply hid most of what links the content to the author. They cleared the content from the authors' ego and from a specific time. They decided that it does not matter who wrote the content - the main thing is that it is written and that it is. And that's the big difference. It was this decision that contributed to the appearance of such an atmosphere of “collectivity” and became a key ingredient in the success of Wikipedia.
Our applications (37signals) go the same way. They are not trying to be "everything for everyone." They have their own position. They find customers who become partners. They are for people who share our vision. Here you are either on board or overboard .
Getting Real, Make Opinionated Software.
Any opinions? ;)
Recently, discussing some technological or architectural issues, in disputes I often had to mention that “this is just an opinion”, and to give a link to an article from Getting Real called Make Opinionated Software (you can skip the link below, the article itself).
This is a simple and interesting concept that I would like to convey to everyone, and especially to project managers whose teams have fire in their eyes and foam in their eyes (or vice versa?) Inventing their own bikes, frameworks, platforms, trying to do everything at once, for all occasions - everything that seems to be very necessary, necessary, and “without it in any way”.
')
At one time, too (and more than once) having passed tests in bicycle construction, I have long held the same opinion as the “37 signals”. And they tell us:
Make apps that are “on their own mind”
Your application must take a definite position.
Some people think that software should be universal. They say that it is too presumptuous for a developer to limit functionality or simply ignore the features that they are asked to do. They tell us that software should always be as flexible as possible.
We think it's a shit. The best software is the one that contains the vision . The best software takes an unambiguous position ( "takes side" - approx. Lane.). When someone uses your program, he expects from her not only incredible features and functionality, he waits for a special approach. He is waiting for a special vision . Decide what your vision is and move forward with it.
And remember - if someone does not like your vision, then for them there are still many other visions. Do not try to chase the part of the people that you will never make happy anyway.
A wonderful example is the original wiki design. Ward Cunningham and Co. deliberately cut out a huge part of the features that were previously considered to be absolutely necessary for the collective work with documents. Instead of (explicitly) visually marking with attributes each change by the name of the author, they simply hid most of what links the content to the author. They cleared the content from the authors' ego and from a specific time. They decided that it does not matter who wrote the content - the main thing is that it is written and that it is. And that's the big difference. It was this decision that contributed to the appearance of such an atmosphere of “collectivity” and became a key ingredient in the success of Wikipedia.
Our applications (37signals) go the same way. They are not trying to be "everything for everyone." They have their own position. They find customers who become partners. They are for people who share our vision. Here you are either on board or overboard .
Getting Real, Make Opinionated Software.
Any opinions? ;)
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/109026/
All Articles