hyperpallium

6 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

diaclaimer: theoretical opinion.

I think the primary problem of giving examples here is similar to teaching software engineering, which needs complex projects solving complex problems - too big for a semester project.

A good schema depends on the problem it's solving.

A secondary problem is similar to code that has sacrificed clarity for performance. The tweaks made for performance are not intrinsic to the logical problem, but are an additional constraint.

For performance on common queries, schema can be flattened or "denomalized". The ability to do so was one of the original motivations for Codd's relational algebra.

hyperpallium

7 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

  You don't understand mathematics,
  you just get used to it - jvn

I used to want to understand math (intuition); now I think of it as learning a language: lots of vocab and rules with some pattern. You need to become fluent - practiced, like a cellist or cricketer.

It's also a language when someone is teaching it.

Prior knowledge is assumed; so it's difficult to detect that it is a gap that's making it difficult. When I finally realized my hard-won breakthroughs were about prior material, I dropped back to do that prior level... again and again.

This thorough approach is far too time-consuming for your needs. I really hope you find a quicker way - and please tell me!

hyperpallium

7 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

> adapt it to your needs

If it's a feature that can be cleanly added into the architecture - i.e. it's just filling in a gap.

But if you have to modify the whole thing in a way that doesn't quite fit... it's a nightmare. Even with your own code, it's simpler to start from scratch with a clean slate.

Also Alan Kay's extreme position: "those who can create their own [libraries], should"

hyperpallium

8 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

I was thinking that Bitbucket still has its promise to always be free.

However, I don't think it will be an issue. As hosting costs drop to zero, if someone starts charging, they lose customers to a free competitor. (as is happening here).

hyperpallium

8 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Related:

> Baader-Meinhof is the phenomenon where one stumbles upon some obscure piece of information—often an unfamiliar word or name—and soon afterwards encounters the same subject again, often repeatedly.

It was there all the time, you just didn't noticd it.

hyperpallium

10 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Still fascinated! Couple ideas using Crossing the Chasm (CtC):

1. Your vision is crucial to your determination. Your vision is disrupting SMB CLM with "huge gains in accuracy and efficiency". You can only start the fire with those also inflamed with your vision - those who care. It seems only CIO's (anyone else?). The CtC idea is to target those few adventurous CIO's ("visionaries") who want to leapfrog the competition with this new, unproven approach. Reach them through those very, very few CIO's who are excited by the idea itself ("enthusiasts") - just because it's a clever, efficient, elegant approach to a broken process. They exist, just not many.

So: if you try to appeal to users, it must be those users who are excited by what causes the "huge gains in accuracy and efficiency". Otherwise they'll carry the wrong torch to the CIO.

2. The other CtC idea is "niches": pick out the types of customer who would really benefit from your solution. e.g. inaccuracy causes chronic problems for them/losing customers/bad publicity; CLM is a dangerously high cost center; they can't keep up with sudden demand and are losing sales; they can't adjust to changing contracts, and lose opportunities; (new) regulations/legislation makes inaccuracy very expensive. Plus, it would open up a new market; overtake a competitor; resist a competitor. These also excite upper management.

Applying it gratifying users: are some businesses constantly approving contracts, and importing templates (or should be)? Maybe during M&A; law/consultancy firms?

Choose your customers to suit you.

hyperpallium

10 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

I guess that's why this top-down market hasn't been disrupted. This guy is seeing clearly. Cutting the old makes way for the new - it would be better if I did this with my own zombie business.

And now, the armchair brainstorming: focus on the "contract review and approval" immediate gratification and marginal user wins - if not sufficient benefit for them to buy, make it multi-month free trial, make it a year. After some "months of use", users get the delayed gratification. They become your sales force from within, and CIO's notice the long-term benefits, validated within their own company, and mandate its use top-down.

It's a long slow burn and mightn't work.

hyperpallium

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

And bitbucket is free for private repos - so you can start using it with minimal admin hassle, no months-long procurement process.

hyperpallium

11 ปีที่แล้วdiscuss

Yes, the network effect of social programming is the heart of open source, so the leader dominates more and more.

But migrating issues is not so trivial. There are probably several other subtle points of incompatibility making switching a headache. If it ain't broke is the Enterprise mantra. They love to standardise. They will hang on for decades.

However, the real point is that $20/m/user is comparatively cheap for the enterprise. The github category is already far better than the old ways; to win, they merely need be slightly more attractive and/or better known than the category alternatives.

comments