Facebook - a shining example of how to make software?
-
I totally agree with you. I don't understand all the Facebook hate. "Why not just pick up a phone?". I'm sure old fogeys were saying that years ago when email was gaining popularity.
RyanEK wrote:
Facebook hate
sour grapes
"If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
-
I don't want to sound like a Facebook fanboy or supporter, but I've worked on a number of large websites, and they are ridiculously tiny compared to the beast that is facebook. As "crappy" as their interface is, millions of people are constantly banging on that thing day in and day out and it is as fast as google if not faster. Personally, I think that is the number one reason they crushed MySpace. Casandra and the improvements they made to memcached are first rate. A schema-less database that scales to no end and handles auto-replication while under crazy load is nothing short of amazing. Unlike mySpace that decided that they needed to work on "customer" wants like letting them customize their pages any way they wanted while relying on traditional databases, they realized that scaling, responsiveness, and games where what people really wanted, and those were the problems they solved. Facebook is simple and easy to use. I know tons of people that can barely use a PC, but feel right at home with facebook on the web and mobile. I'm sure many advanced features are constrained by scale, and or fall into the 80/20 category. It almost never fails uploading a pic at a time from my blackberry, but yeah, their multiple photo upload sucks. I think the worst thing about facebook is that they are actively working to sell out their users. The crap they pull goes way beyond just trying to get money from ads and the like. They are pushing every privacy boundary just to see what they can get away with, even if it doesn't even seem like they could make money from it. The other thing is that facebook is a huge platform for all those social games that I hate so much. They do a really good job at it, and it brings people in so they can live out all their mafia/farmer fantasies. They also make it easy to ignore for people like me.
As an app it's poorly designed, un-intuitive and that has nothing to do with it's size or scope. Yes it's a technical feat that they service so many users that they do, on the other hand it's really not considering that with the modern tools at hand any one of us could write a better replacement for it that would be just as responsive. To call it *huge* is only accurate in the sense of how many users they must support. Take that out and it's a pretty standard simple web application. The only reason people find it easy to use is through the sheer simplicity of what it has to accomplish. It's so limited in features that it's be definition that much easier to use. Go into *any* feature beyond posting an update or reading other peoples updates and you quickly find out how unintuitive and just plain buggy it is. At it's heart it's a simple bulletin board system, the kind that have been around and which I've been using since the days of dial up BBS's. Perhaps to some of the more youthful in our crowd it seems ground breaking but let's face it, in the fullness of time from the right perspective it's only real lesson to teach us is the importance of being in the right place at the right time and having a firm understanding of marketing.
There is no failure only feedback
-
I totally agree with you. I don't understand all the Facebook hate. "Why not just pick up a phone?". I'm sure old fogeys were saying that years ago when email was gaining popularity.
-
Interesting choice to publish your opinion without reading *any* of the discussion that went before and basing it solely on as light a grasp of the topic at hand as humanly possible. :)
There is no failure only feedback
-
As an app it's poorly designed, un-intuitive and that has nothing to do with it's size or scope. Yes it's a technical feat that they service so many users that they do, on the other hand it's really not considering that with the modern tools at hand any one of us could write a better replacement for it that would be just as responsive. To call it *huge* is only accurate in the sense of how many users they must support. Take that out and it's a pretty standard simple web application. The only reason people find it easy to use is through the sheer simplicity of what it has to accomplish. It's so limited in features that it's be definition that much easier to use. Go into *any* feature beyond posting an update or reading other peoples updates and you quickly find out how unintuitive and just plain buggy it is. At it's heart it's a simple bulletin board system, the kind that have been around and which I've been using since the days of dial up BBS's. Perhaps to some of the more youthful in our crowd it seems ground breaking but let's face it, in the fullness of time from the right perspective it's only real lesson to teach us is the importance of being in the right place at the right time and having a firm understanding of marketing.
There is no failure only feedback
John C wrote:
on the other hand it's really not considering that with the modern tools at hand any one of us could write a better replacement for it that would be just as responsive.
I think you are really underestimating this one. There are many many more failures than successes in this category. Google is about the only other web app the size of facebook and they don't even handle live updates for their main app. They built their own custom file system, and computation engine to get there, which is pretty incredible engineering. I'm pretty sure the facebook platform is the only thing that could actually run the facebook application right now, and it can only be considered "off the shelf" because they open sourced their internal tools. If facebook is so easy to build? What would you build it on, and there isn't a relational database that could work as the back end for facebook.
-
As an app it's poorly designed, un-intuitive and that has nothing to do with it's size or scope. Yes it's a technical feat that they service so many users that they do, on the other hand it's really not considering that with the modern tools at hand any one of us could write a better replacement for it that would be just as responsive. To call it *huge* is only accurate in the sense of how many users they must support. Take that out and it's a pretty standard simple web application. The only reason people find it easy to use is through the sheer simplicity of what it has to accomplish. It's so limited in features that it's be definition that much easier to use. Go into *any* feature beyond posting an update or reading other peoples updates and you quickly find out how unintuitive and just plain buggy it is. At it's heart it's a simple bulletin board system, the kind that have been around and which I've been using since the days of dial up BBS's. Perhaps to some of the more youthful in our crowd it seems ground breaking but let's face it, in the fullness of time from the right perspective it's only real lesson to teach us is the importance of being in the right place at the right time and having a firm understanding of marketing.
There is no failure only feedback
John C wrote:
pretty standard simple web application
John C wrote:
the only reason people find it easy to use is through the sheer simplicity of what it has to accomplish
I'm pretty sure that's what they were going for. I'm starting to get confused by your arguments?
-
I'm not quite sure how you determined that I hadn't read any previous posts. It's quite obvious in this forum that any mention of Facebook will get a bashing.
You did the exact same thing they did but in reverse, you jumped on and declared "Luddite" when the discussion was really about whether Facebook should be held up as an example to anyone developing software. I think I did say I use Facebook, I'm not slamming it because I have an axe to grind, I'm slamming the idea that it should be held up as some kind of shining example of what we should all be doing as developers. It's just not that good to be an example for anything.
There is no failure only feedback
-
John C wrote:
on the other hand it's really not considering that with the modern tools at hand any one of us could write a better replacement for it that would be just as responsive.
I think you are really underestimating this one. There are many many more failures than successes in this category. Google is about the only other web app the size of facebook and they don't even handle live updates for their main app. They built their own custom file system, and computation engine to get there, which is pretty incredible engineering. I'm pretty sure the facebook platform is the only thing that could actually run the facebook application right now, and it can only be considered "off the shelf" because they open sourced their internal tools. If facebook is so easy to build? What would you build it on, and there isn't a relational database that could work as the back end for facebook.
Andy Brummer wrote:
I'm pretty sure the facebook platform is the only thing that could actually run the facebook application right now
Definitely. Facebook runs with some modifications to projects like PHP that aren't stable or generic enough for inclusion in a public release (although we do our best to make these available). http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=2356432130
-
You did the exact same thing they did but in reverse, you jumped on and declared "Luddite" when the discussion was really about whether Facebook should be held up as an example to anyone developing software. I think I did say I use Facebook, I'm not slamming it because I have an axe to grind, I'm slamming the idea that it should be held up as some kind of shining example of what we should all be doing as developers. It's just not that good to be an example for anything.
There is no failure only feedback
John C wrote:
It's just not that good to be an example for anything.
other than success.
-
John C wrote:
on the other hand it's really not considering that with the modern tools at hand any one of us could write a better replacement for it that would be just as responsive.
I think you are really underestimating this one. There are many many more failures than successes in this category. Google is about the only other web app the size of facebook and they don't even handle live updates for their main app. They built their own custom file system, and computation engine to get there, which is pretty incredible engineering. I'm pretty sure the facebook platform is the only thing that could actually run the facebook application right now, and it can only be considered "off the shelf" because they open sourced their internal tools. If facebook is so easy to build? What would you build it on, and there isn't a relational database that could work as the back end for facebook.
Ok, give me a month to find the ideal platform that will scale properly (I see different ones mentioned almost daily in my recent interest in cloud computing and non relational database technology so a month is probably a exaggeration, likely a week at this point). Then give me a month to really learn the ins and outs of that platform. Then three weeks to maybe a month to code the actual interface that accomplishes the same exact thing as Facebook does now only non buggy and far more intuitive and Bob's your lobster. If you really want to see it in action give me about 100 million dollars for marketing and I guarantee you we'll knock Facebook off the radar. It's only a matter of swaying a critical mass of users by being just a little bit cooler and easier to use and portraying Facebook as deeply uncool; once you do the rest is automatic as they proved themselves years ago. Nearly all the failures can be chalked up to poor marketing. Good ideas are worth nothing, even the execution is unimportant without the marketing to turn them into cash.
There is no failure only feedback
-
You did the exact same thing they did but in reverse, you jumped on and declared "Luddite" when the discussion was really about whether Facebook should be held up as an example to anyone developing software. I think I did say I use Facebook, I'm not slamming it because I have an axe to grind, I'm slamming the idea that it should be held up as some kind of shining example of what we should all be doing as developers. It's just not that good to be an example for anything.
There is no failure only feedback
Nah i'm pretty sure this thread has extended beyond what Facebook has achieved technically. There are many members here who see Facebook as this big anti-social machine, intent on invading our privacy. I think it's a great example of how we can use technology to make the world a smaller place... and as a developer there are countless lessons to be learnt from Facebook. They've done what countless of people have failed to do. An example is their direct advertising. A company can go to Facebook and say... "look I want to direct my product to males between 15 and 25 who leave in the Melbourne area and like country music". They can do that and that's impressive.
-
Nah i'm pretty sure this thread has extended beyond what Facebook has achieved technically. There are many members here who see Facebook as this big anti-social machine, intent on invading our privacy. I think it's a great example of how we can use technology to make the world a smaller place... and as a developer there are countless lessons to be learnt from Facebook. They've done what countless of people have failed to do. An example is their direct advertising. A company can go to Facebook and say... "look I want to direct my product to males between 15 and 25 who leave in the Melbourne area and like country music". They can do that and that's impressive.
RyanEK wrote:
Nah i'm pretty sure this thread has extended beyond what Facebook has achieved technically.
It has but I'm not one of them.
RyanEK wrote:
I think it's a great example of how we can use technology to make the world a smaller place
Sure, I can agree with that.
RyanEK wrote:
and as a developer there are countless lessons to be learnt from Facebook.
Um...I really don't see much there. It's *interesting* not doubt about it, but lessons? That's a pretty strong word unless you work for a pretty similar organization putting out a pretty similar product I don't really see a lot of lessons there. The interface is a can of worms so nothing to learn there.
RyanEK wrote:
An example is their direct advertising. A company can go to Facebook and say... "look I want to direct my product to males between 15 and 25 who leave in the Melbourne area and like country music". They can do that and that's impressive.
That's marketing. Facebook is a marketing machine. I am deeply interested in marketing as a partner in a small software shop that sells COTS world-wide. But that's hardly a lesson for developers in there and it's nothing new whatsoever. AOL did it for years quite some time ago and other companies have been doing it in the non internet world since well before our lifetimes or our parents lifetimes.
There is no failure only feedback
-
Ok, give me a month to find the ideal platform that will scale properly (I see different ones mentioned almost daily in my recent interest in cloud computing and non relational database technology so a month is probably a exaggeration, likely a week at this point). Then give me a month to really learn the ins and outs of that platform. Then three weeks to maybe a month to code the actual interface that accomplishes the same exact thing as Facebook does now only non buggy and far more intuitive and Bob's your lobster. If you really want to see it in action give me about 100 million dollars for marketing and I guarantee you we'll knock Facebook off the radar. It's only a matter of swaying a critical mass of users by being just a little bit cooler and easier to use and portraying Facebook as deeply uncool; once you do the rest is automatic as they proved themselves years ago. Nearly all the failures can be chalked up to poor marketing. Good ideas are worth nothing, even the execution is unimportant without the marketing to turn them into cash.
There is no failure only feedback
John C wrote:
Ok, give me a month to find the ideal platform that will scale properly (I see different ones mentioned almost daily in my recent interest in cloud computing and non relational database technology so a month is probably a exaggeration, likely a week at this point).
I'm not sure why we are having a conversation of this sort then. Facebook is very well respected in the big data/cloud space. I'm saying that it is not without merit. I guess I'm surprised at how dismissive you are at what seems to me to be a lot of quality work from the company behind facebook.
-
John C wrote:
Ok, give me a month to find the ideal platform that will scale properly (I see different ones mentioned almost daily in my recent interest in cloud computing and non relational database technology so a month is probably a exaggeration, likely a week at this point).
I'm not sure why we are having a conversation of this sort then. Facebook is very well respected in the big data/cloud space. I'm saying that it is not without merit. I guess I'm surprised at how dismissive you are at what seems to me to be a lot of quality work from the company behind facebook.
I've never said what they do isn't interesting, far from it, I just don't see what they are supposed to teach us that is helpful if you are not Facebook. My post is all about the articles I keep seeing saying how great Facebook is. It certainly is great, just not from a usability standpoint, nor from a development standpoint if you believe what was written in that article. It's spaghetti code at the top and it shows. Somewhere in the bowels of Facebook is probably some very small team who makes the infrastructure work, they deserve a lot of credit certainly but the majority of devs who make the interface should be take out back and spanked when they can't get simple stuff working properly for many months, like a dialog that allows you to select more than one photo to upload which they admit is broken because they provide a link to use the single photo at a time method as an "alternative". :) I mention that but there are lots of other examples.
There is no failure only feedback
-
I've never said what they do isn't interesting, far from it, I just don't see what they are supposed to teach us that is helpful if you are not Facebook. My post is all about the articles I keep seeing saying how great Facebook is. It certainly is great, just not from a usability standpoint, nor from a development standpoint if you believe what was written in that article. It's spaghetti code at the top and it shows. Somewhere in the bowels of Facebook is probably some very small team who makes the infrastructure work, they deserve a lot of credit certainly but the majority of devs who make the interface should be take out back and spanked when they can't get simple stuff working properly for many months, like a dialog that allows you to select more than one photo to upload which they admit is broken because they provide a link to use the single photo at a time method as an "alternative". :) I mention that but there are lots of other examples.
There is no failure only feedback
I'm with you with that, it's all pretty reasonable. I was distracted by all the negativity earlier.
-
Chris Meech wrote:
When I read the article this morning, I thought. OMG. How many times do we have make the same mistakes over again. Smile
Well in line with Peter's post below, apparently since most of these leet hackerz don't read much, it's all the first time for them!
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Blow