why does software suck

why are game developers the only people who can make reasonably fast and reliable software

i guess also operating system developers

>>1
Feedback and large-scale testing. It forces Quality.
If your niche field is software that simulates anthills in text format, your userbase is going to be low and feedback sparse; conversely if your niche software is GRAPHICAL ANTHILL SIMULATOR 3000 you'll get thousands of free beta-testers.

>>2
good point
that seems to be the common factor
databases and popular compilers are also pretty stable and fast

>>3
It also forces the developers to appreciate their userbase.
In languages where bugs are common like C, ignoring the userbase, debug reports and complaints will result in inferior software(bugs add up, quality goes down).
In languages where bugs are largely caught by compiler like e.g. Ada, developers can afford to ignore their userbase without a major decrease in quality, but their vision will often diverge from user demands.

BECAUSE AN ENTIRE GENRATION OF COMPUTER SCIENTISTS WERE TOLD THE WRONG THING!!!! THEY WERE TOLD C IS GOOD BOY LANGUAGE WHEN IN FACT IS THE LANGUAGE FOR THE BAD BOYS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE. ALL COMPUTER VIRUS ARE CREATED WITH C ENGINERING. C IS TERROR FOR SOFTWARE DOCTORS WORKING IN TEAMS. NEXT TIME U MENTION C FOR THE FIRST TIME DURIN A TEAM REUNION LOOK AT THE EXPERIENCED AN COMPETENT PEOPLE AND U WILL NOTICE HOW THEIR FACE WILL REPRESENT ABSOLUTE TERROR BECAUSE THEY KNOW C PROGRAMING MEANS ERRORS, DEBUGING AND HARMFUL CODE!!! WE SHOULD TEACXH HTE NEXT GENERATION OF COMPUTER DOCTORS ABOUT HASKELL. I AM HTHE MOST HASKELL COMPUTER EXPERT AND NEVER HAD ANY VIRUS IN MY CODE

>>4

It also forces the developers to appreciate their userbase.

Creating a junk product is an indication that they have no appreciation for their userbase. If the software is full of bugs, people will choose an alternative. If software results in leaked credit card numbers, anyone who pushes it would be regarded as a potential criminal who wants people to use garbage code so they can exploit it.

developers can afford to ignore their userbase without a major decrease in quality, but their vision will often diverge from user demands.

That's only the case if the developers of the buggy software want more users than the developers of the non-buggy software. If more users was always the goal, the GHC developers would have made a Java compiler. A small loyal userbase might be better than a large number of users who want to change your vision into something else.

But people who make non-buggy software care more about their work. They care more about their users, not necessarily the number of users, because they are not putting out garbage. Developers who don't have to fix bugs can spend more time adding new features that users want.

Laggy and ugly games don't sell, so bad developers who come up with those end up unemployed.

The good programmers who optimize their software and deliver a better product end up with good profits.

So it's natural that competition keeps mostly the good stuff.

Of course there are lots of variables and it's not that simple. Bad programmed games can sell if they have amazing story, if it's COD 17 or FIFA 2019 (games people can't stop playing because they do so for a long time), very simple but addicting games, etc...

But as a rule of thumb bad developers lose their jobs and good developers keep making games.

I think the best game developers are at Naughty Dog.

http://www.gameenginebook.com/resources/SINFO.pdf

The secret to writing highly efficient code is mastery of your hardware.

>>7
well, obviously I didn't mean all game developers, but the good ones seem to be really fucking good

I wouldn't be so quick to say that game developers are better than other programmers: there were always buggy games out there but recent years have been full of beta versions masquerading as full releases and games with horrible performance even on high-end hardware, not to mention the whole early access bullshit when people actually pay to be beta testers.

but yes, there are some game devs out there who can make complex software with good performance and few bugs. why? because games are different from most other software:
- user input is more restricted than in most software (exception: parser-based interactive fiction)
- in many games (the more linear ones), gameplay logic is not that complex so there are fewer things to screw up, especially if you're using an engine that does shit like physics for you
- portability is less of an issue: you either make your game exclusive to one platform (e.g. only PS4) or to a discrete subset of platforms (e.g. Windows, PS4, XB1), which allows you to use hardware-specific optimizations (console devs are complaining that PCs have different hardware but this is mostly just about numbers, they rarely do anything to support Linux - not to mention BSD - or to make their games playable on different CPU architectures)
- the games are distributed in a binary form so there's no need to make building process comprehensible; it may be insane and labyrinthine because it must be done only in one place (exception: open source games)
- security is less of an issue, unless it affects multiplayer or allows jailbreaking consoles
- budgets are often pretty high
- performance is directly relevant to success
- there's no need for maintainability: you don't need to support shit like the everchanging standards and new file formats because there are no standards, you do whatever you want; the game is released, you fix bugs and maybe add some new levels, people play the game and they're done with it and if they want to play them 10 years later then it's their job to make it work (exception: online games with official servers)

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I claim these dubz in the name of the United States of America
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

I'm a professional game dev and the majority of people at both companies I've worked at were garbage coders.

>>12
Then you worked at a shit company.
Apply to a better one.

>>13
I thought this before changing companies the first time, so I quit and joined a bigger/more well known company, but there's still bunches of shitty programmers. The only difference is that there are a few more other competent people to help wade through the sea of shit, but the sea of shit is still there. Somehow I have a feeling this will be the case no matter how far up the ladder of game companies I climb.

>>14
I'm not in the industry, but have you seen the Naughty Dog presentation linked on >>8 ?
The first few pages talk about their hiring process.
There's no way they have shitty programmers there.

See Page 15.

Hiring Programmers
At Naughty Dog, programmer candidates are evaluated for:

✹ math and problem-solving skills,
✹ knowledge of low-level hardware and optimization techniques,
✹ general computer science (data structures, algorithms, languages)

... in that order!

Also see Page 17.

✹ Don't be afraid to let a bad apple go

I don't see a shitty programmer being hired.
In the rare case he ends up being hired, I don't see a chance of him staying long on the team.

Just because your company is big/well known it doesn't mean it's good.
Keep climbing the ladder. You'll eventually find a great company.

>>5
I AM THE MOST NGGER MATURE!!!! GIVE ME THE PASSWORD!!!

>>16
wow rude

>>15
Hello Mr. Naughty Dog Dev-san :^)