The slow development of the product - stability or stagnation?

Aytishny writer Michael Lopp recently published on his blog an interesting note, touching it very nontrivial question: whether to abandon any program, even if it is solidly made, but over the years does not receive large updates?

Specifically, Lopp says Manager Things tasksWhich he gladly used for many years, but eventually gave in favor of other GTD-system. Product really MightyIt is wonderful to cope with its tasks, and it looks nice. And by and large, in Lopp Things like everything. But who is more or less worked closely with the product, he is well aware of how rare and minor updates were within its basic version. Lopp writes:

"Part of me comfortable with the lack of change, because the program I just needed that bring the problem to the list, it is convenient to make it in the desired category, set the desired priority, and at the right time simply find this task through a search or filter - all in Things worked without a hitch, and a hitch. "

"[But] How can I believe that the use masterpiece of task managers, if the program took more than two years to get a simple and easy sync feature? What other innovations still could not reach the final product? Why graphic design has remained unchanged for centuries? What it smells like? It smells of stagnation. "

instagram viewer

The lack of dynamic development of the program was the main reason for the Lopp Things deleted from your computer.

In defense of his colleagues from Cultured Code (Things developers) ardently defended programmer Daniel Yalqut, Citing as a counterargument bright furniture metaphor:

"... when the chair is cut and assembled, work on its functionality ends. Here it is, a chair, and on it you can sit. He's ready. But buyers will rightly complain about the rough work, while the master does not comply with labor-intensive process of detail, polishing and varnishing. Only then the chair will be deemed made well. "

Yalkut agrees that the software like any other product, should be criticized - but only when it is not doing something important, but not at all for the fact that it is not observed the general changes. While developer immediately recognized that he himself thought of stagnation with regard to presentation editor Keynote: program - and Now is the best of its kind - razdazhala Yalqut more and more by the fact that in her long years of little change. Kindly quiet word commemorate and Apple, which, as it seemed to have given up on their office applications. However, from Keynote Yakut and not refused (well, not in the same PowerPoint move!).

* * *

So the question arises: whether it is necessary to find a replacement application with an established set of tools, if imposed on is an application problem, by and large, do not change, and the program itself to cope with these tasks consistently OK?

As I said, the question is non-trivial, since on the one hand there are real user needs and objective application flaws, but on the other - the desire to get a free something new, it is not necessary, but always exciting. And the more professional people looking at a working tool, the smaller the second pressing on the first ...

How important is it for you personally a regular update of your favorite programs if their core functionality you have no complaints? Do you think optional dynamic development program, or developers can relax for an indefinite period if the tool meets the needs of the majority?

What do you think about this?