Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ohyes 5757 days ago
This code was written by a bunch of undergraduate college students.

This is hiring a bunch of interns (with near zero experience) to implement your product, giving them three months, and then being shocked -- SHOCKED, when the code is not professional grade quality.

I was shocked when everyone and their brother was willing to shell out money to a group of completely unproven college students to produce a distributed open source 'Facebook Clone', that is also 'private'. My inclination is that the 'distributed' and 'private' parts of the description push it into the oxymoron tier of product specifications. I would have expected this alone to give people pause about what the architecture would be (somehow it didn't).

Honestly, at least they have produced something, and for the most part, it works. Hopefully they haven't burned through too much of the $250,000 that they started with. 3 months of development time is honestly nothing.

Presumably, they could get comments on this, throw the entire thing away, re-write while fixing the various issues, and be well beyond where they are now in another three months. (If this is as bad as Steve says, I hope this is the case). Presumably the development will go faster because previously they were learning and developing at the same time (presumably).

Hacking together a prototype that you then throw away is a perfectly reasonable development model. I'm impressed (and pleased) that they have produced anything.

3 comments

"Hopefully they haven't burned through too much of the $250,000 that they started with."

They mention at least two large cost items - luxr (basically consulting by Janice Fraser, it says around $10k on the company page) and pivotal labs. Pivotal is the huge one, I once got a quote from them on a project I was working on and they basically said they don't do less than 6 figures. So unless they got some kind of insider discount, the back-of-the-napkin math says at least half of their cash is gone.

Whether it was worth it or not is a separate matter. As a resume builder for a young team: sure, why not, you could do a lot worse. As a product for end users: you might support their cause, it depends on whether you're 1) a Facebook-hating neckbeard-sporting privacy nut - excuse me, libertarian, or 2) willing to cut them slack on an early release because there's some interesting technical challenge they're tackling.

For everyone else: no thanks, Facebook's fine and we'll stick with the real thing.

According to a post in a thread yesterday, they just worked at Pivotal's office, they weren't consulting for them.
>it depends on whether you're 1) a Facebook-hating neckbeard-sporting privacy nut - excuse me, libertarian

What exactly is so abnormal about being concerned with Facebook's privacy problems? Particularly, what issues are normal to be concerned about and what issues make one a "neckbeard-sporting privacy nut"?

If they re-write, given that they're fairly inexperienced but are probably still sitting on a pile of cash, they run into the Second System Effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect

"Build one to throw away" seems more applicable here. Context is everything when applying fuzzy jargon.
"when following on from a relatively small, elegant, and successful system."

I don't think that the second system effect applies, specifically given that it isn't elegant or successful yet. (In fact, most of the comments are that it is inelegant and a failure).

Second system effect mostly reflects the evils of redesigning a perfectly good working product.

Not necessarily and I think it's one of those phrases open to interpretation.

IMO, second system effect is doing everything you've done bigger and better while fixing the problems in the first system. It wasn't tied to the elegance of the first system design, at least in my mind.

IMO the Wikipedia definition is too restrictive. SSE is common even if the first design wasn't small, elegant or successful.
I agree, rewriting software, even ugly but well debugged software, is bad.

(Debugging is 90% of software development).

But this isn't even debugged.

I write a prototype to learn the technologies for a given project all the time. It is the first step in my development cycle (How the hell does this stuff work?) I don't design it, I just start hacking.

Once I have an understanding of how the various pieces are able to fit together, then I make a design and put together the first system.

My point is that I don't think this is complete or well-implemented enough to comprise a first system. (And it isn't, it is an alpha).

hiring a bunch of interns (with near zero experience) to implement your product - that is how a nearly 90% of projects are started, due to pure economical reason. ^_^
I'm an intern with near zero experience... Anyone hiring? ;-)

(Well, I have more than zero experience... maybe I'm overqualified)

Join a group, and together you will be a gang! ^_^