[HN Gopher] Perfect Software - Software for an Audience of One
___________________________________________________________________
Perfect Software - Software for an Audience of One
Author : ggauravr
Score : 65 points
Date : 2025-12-20 07:14 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (outofdesk.netlify.app)
(TXT) w3m dump (outofdesk.netlify.app)
| tidderjail2 wrote:
| I feel the same, I'm now building more side projects with the
| help of AI even if they're only for me
| jesse__ wrote:
| By the authors definition, I've been writing perfect software for
| over a decade.
|
| It's never required LLMs. In fact, I think the idea that "LLMs
| allow us to write software for ourselves" borders on missing the
| point, for me at least. I write software for myself because I
| like the exploratory process .. figuring out how do do something
| such that it works with as little friction as possible from the
| side of the user; who is of course myself, in the future.
|
| I like nitpicking the details, getting totally side-tracked on
| seemingly frivolous minutiae. Frequently enough, coming to the
| end of a month long yak-shave actually contributes meaningful
| insight to the problem at hand.
|
| I guess what I'm trying to say is "you're allowed to just program
| .. for no other reason than the fun of it".
|
| As evidence for my claims: a few of my 'perfect' projects
|
| https://github.com/scallyw4g/bonsai
|
| https://github.com/scallyw4g/poof
|
| https://scallywag.software
| rolfus wrote:
| I get what you're saying - I personally scratch that itch by
| doing woodworking and hobby electronics; I just love doing it
| and the end product is often just a means to an end; to craft
| something and enjoying the process of it.
|
| But programming doesn't give me that same feeling, and
| honestly; the scope of doing and learning everything needed to
| make my projects without LLM's are just way out of reach.
| Learning these things would not be relevant to my career or my
| other hobbies. So, for me I use LLM's the way a person who's
| not into carpentry might buy the services of a carpenter,
| despite the possibility of them doing the project themselves
| after investing tons of time into learning how.
| skydhash wrote:
| These days, I spend my personal coding time on building
| personal interfaces either as a shell script or as emacs
| packages. So many tools and applications hinders power usage.
| rolfus wrote:
| This resonates with me. I'm not a programmer, and before LLM's I
| could only make basic hello world apps and simple websites. Now I
| am developing my own versions of various apps that I've used but
| maybe have limitations that I've become frustrated with. For
| example, I didn't like how the fitness tracker Strava didn't
| allow me to customize audio announcements, so now I have my own
| (and in my own eyes) better version of Strava that I use instead.
| It's absolutely blowing my mind that this is possible and
| available today, and not some tech-optimists wet dream about an
| impossible future.
| reconnecting wrote:
| Here is the demo of my perfect software.
|
| https://play.tirreno.com
|
| However, I'm skeptical about AI, because what I've understood
| about agentic processes is more about cheap dopamine.
|
| When it comes to medium-sized software development (over 50k
| LOC), there is much less fun and much more pain, because a
| growing codebase doesn't allow you to make new features easily.
|
| I believe it is important not to mix up a dose of dopamine gotten
| from agentic results, as in the article, with achievement from
| longstanding work, even if it's not so attractive from a short-
| term perspective.
| breckenedge wrote:
| I use Claude Code on a 900kloc Rails/JS monolith and it's still
| pretty pleasant. However if it wasn't already structured well,
| I could see that being a worse experience.
| reconnecting wrote:
| The article is about the pleasure of creating new software
| (occasionally with AI help), so I hope that the 900k LOC in
| your case doesn't come from Claude Code.
| 1313ed01 wrote:
| Someone just discovered why some of us enjoy shell scripts and
| Emacs so much. No need for LLM, just small hacks to solve
| specific problems in limited contexts that works well enough,
| most of the time, for one user.
| lll-o-lll wrote:
| This article triggers all my "written by an LLM" spidey senses.
|
| Which is ironic considering the subject matter. "Perfect", but
| artificially constructed. "Just for me", but algorithmic slop.
|
| I agree that you can do so much more custom tailoring of bespoke
| software with the speed an LLM brings. But something inside of me
| still revolts at calling this anything other than "convenient".
|
| "Perfect" I will reserve for things I've made myself. However
| "imperfect" they may really be.
| imiric wrote:
| This has always been possible, even if you weren't a programmer.
| You just needed to have the desire to customize your computing
| environment, and the time and patience to do it.
|
| There is so much software out there, written by people who wanted
| to solve their particular problem, just like you. Chances are
| that some of it will fit your needs, and, if the software is
| flexible enough, will allow you to customize it to make that fit
| even better.
|
| This is why the Unix philosophy is so powerful. Small independent
| programs that do one thing well, which can be configured and
| composed in practically infinite number of ways. I don't need to
| write a file search or sorting program, nor does the file search
| program need to implement sorting. But as a user, I can compose
| both programs in a way to get a sorted list of files by any
| criteria I need. This is possible without either program being
| aware of the other, and I can compose programs written decades
| ago with ones written today.
|
| You can extend this to other parts of your system as well.
| Instead of using a desktop environment like GNOME, try using a
| program that just manages windows. Then pick another program for
| launching applications. And so on. This is certainly more work
| than the alternative, but at the end of the day, you feel like
| you are in control of your computer, instead of the other way
| around.
| eterm wrote:
| I like this article, I think it taps into something real.
|
| I find myself scratching real itches that would otherwise have
| gone left un-scratched, because the hurdle to just getting
| started on something was too damn high.
|
| For example I had need for an image contact-sheet. I'm sure there
| exist a lot of contact sheet generators out there, but I was able
| to just as quickly get claude to write me a set of scripts that
| took a bunch of raw images, resized them down to thumbnails,
| extracted their meta-data, and wrote a PDF (via Typst) with
| filenames and meta-data, in date order.
|
| I got lost perfecting it, hand-picking fonts etc, but it still
| only took an hour or so from start to finish.
|
| It's perfect for my need, I can customise it any time I want by
| simply asking claude to modify it.
|
| Did I need to be a developer to do that? Arguably yes, to know
| the capabilities of the system, to know to ask it to leverage
| image-magick and typst, to understand what the failure-modes
| looked like, etc.
|
| But I dind't need to be programmer, and over time people like the
| OP will learn the development side of software development
| without learning the programming side.
|
| And that's okay.
| mgaunard wrote:
| The comparison to coffee is bad, since it's obvious the best
| coffee is with no sugar and no milk.
| pedrogpimenta wrote:
| I agree, but it is there: perfect amount of sugar: 0, perfect
| milk-to-coffee ratio: 0 to 1.
|
| What really gets on my nerves is the justified text...
| CharlieDigital wrote:
| > The Extended Mind Theory argues that our tools are not just
| accessories, but literal extensions of our cognitive process.
| Viewed this way, a generic tool like a one-size-fits-all app,
| feels like a prosthetic that doesn't quite fit.
|
| Three years back now, my wife and I were planning a two-week long
| trip and found it really difficult to simply move day-places
| around (e.g. shift a whole day in a schedule with all of the
| places planned for the day) as we were planning a multi-city
| route.
|
| We started with Google Sheets (way too cumbersome), then Docs
| (cumbersome in a different way), then a simple app using Firebase
| + the Google Maps embedded API built over a weekend, and then
| ended up building a full blown planning app and eventually a
| Chrome extension[0] that hooks directly into Google Maps (our
| preferred tool for exploring).
|
| We are _meticulous_ planners so I totally get the author 's
| sentiment here. Many people see the app the first time and feel
| overwhelmed, but for us, it's hard to imagine using other tools
| now because this one fits "just right" having been built
| specifically for our planning process.
|
| [0] For anyone interested:
| https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/turasapp/lpfijfdbgo...
| qbit wrote:
| I've always been somewhat dissatisfied with image
| viewing/browsing software. Gqview and Sequential came close to
| being what I wanted, but there were things about both that I
| didn't like. I finally just wrote my own custom viewer using
| pyqt. For me, it is perfect software!
| Lyngbakr wrote:
| I was nodding along enthusiastically right up until LLMs and that
| point we sharply diverge.
|
| For me, part of creating "perfect" software is that _I_ am very
| much the one crafting the software. I 'm learning while creating,
| but I find such learning is greatly diminished when I outsource
| building to AI. It's certainly _harder_ and perhaps my software
| is worse, but for me the sense of achievement is also much
| greater.
| grugagag wrote:
| You can still create what you already know how to, by hand, but
| also extend to areas you previously where shy about with the
| help of LLMs.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-23 23:00 UTC)