At work I finally got around to doing a project I’ve been wanting to do for a long time: analyze the sharing behavior of a year’s worth of content at Mashable.
It’s no small project. First, a year’s worth of Mashable content must be collected, which ended up being 13,979 articles in total. Next, the author, publish date, headline, and full text of each post must be extracted from each page, which requires a (fortunately simple) custom scraper to be built. Next, the social resonance data of each article must be collected. For this analysis, I collected share counts for Twitter, Facebook, StumbleUpon, LinkedIn, Google+, and Pinterest, plus clicks from Bitly and per-article submissions from Reddit. Continue reading “A Year of Mashable — 2012”
There are a whole lot of strong opinions about ORM floating around the internet and elsewhere. When you see somanypassionate, conflictingopinions in so many different threads, it’s a pretty clear sign you’re looking at a religious argument rather than a rational debate. And, as in any good religious argument — big endian or little endian, butter side up or butter side down, vi or emacs, Team Jacob or Team Edward — this one has two sides, too.
Code should be simple. Code should be butt simple. Code should be so simple that there’s no way it can be misunderstood. Good code has no nooks. Good code has no crannies. Good code is a round room with no corners for bugs to hide in.
We all know this. So why does most code suck?
Because it’s written by people who don’t understand the problem they’re trying to solve.
Eventually, every programmer blogs about how to become a better programmer. It seems to be the price of admission to the industry. Programmers are a vain lot, and every one of us likes to think he has a unique viewpoint to contribute with insightful advice and meaningful guidance. The reality is that the “learn how to program” post is cliché. There are so many that each new one is nothing more than an echo of some old, vaguely-remembered, proto-learn-how-to-program-post. No one should write another. There’s no point.
In another post, I claimed that software can’t be written with no bugs at all. Well, it turns out that’s not quite true. What I shouldhave said is that writing bug-free software is not possible within the constraints of most software businesses or open-source projects.
But that just doesn’t have the same pizazz, does it?
The trouble is that software businesses exist to make money, and open source projects exist to give developers interesting things to do and exposure. (Naturally, there are some exceptions in both camps, but if you imagine that’s always true, you won’t be too far off.) And if these are the goals you’re chasing — customers and money, or interesting problems and exposure — you don’t end up with perfect software. You go broke or get bored before you get there.
Ask 100 CEOs of software companies if they want to ship software with bugs. What will they say? 50 won’t answer at all, saying something about how bugs are a huge problem in the industry that needs to be addressed; 40 will say “Of course not!” and promptly call their shark tank in preparation for a lawsuit; 9 will hang their heads and say “we can’t help it”; and that last 1 will look you straight in the eye and say “Absolutely.”
I have no idea what that last guy’s doing heading up a software company, because he studied economics.