Software bugs, can’t we just hire more developers to fix all the bugs?

Software bugs, can’t we just hire more developers to fix all the bugs?

Software has bugs. This is normal.

It's a harsh reality, but one we must accept. The disappointment we often feel when encountering bugs stems from unrealistic expectations. We demand perfection, but software development is a complex endeavor prone to errors.

While throwing more developers and testers at the problem might seem like a solution, it often leads to more issues. Frederick Brooks famously observed that adding people to a late software project makes it later.

The ideal way to ensure impeccable software quality is to write minimal code and spend an exorbitant amount of time refining it. However, this approach is rarely compatible with commercial success or developer motivation. Imagine an iPhone with 1/3 fewer features to reduce bugs. It wouldn't be a popular choice.

Bugs are an inevitable byproduct of writing software. Techniques and tools can help reduce their occurrence, but complete eradication is impossible.

Understanding that software = bugs allows us to prioritize bug fixes more effectively. The absence of bugs is just one factor in software success. A useful piece of software can still be valuable despite bugs, while a bug-free piece of software can be useless.

The market often values factors like adoption, integrations, brand, and user experience over bug-free perfection. A software package with fewer bugs but limited adoption might not outperform a buggy one with a strong user base.

Software organizations prioritize bug fixes based on their impact on users. Critical bugs affecting many users are addressed immediately, while less severe ones might be deferred. This is a normal and expected practice.

Instead of demeaning developers or demanding immediate bug fixes, we should appreciate the complexity of software development. Marvel at the miracle of functioning software and have empathy for the developers who work tirelessly to create it.