Slashdot Mirror


Does Software Need a Siskel and Ebert?

theodp writes "Over at Scripting News, Dave Winer laments the lack of serious software reviews in the NY Times. That wasn't always the case, recalls Dave. 'When they started doing software reviews in the early '80s it was with the usual Times flair,' says Winer. 'But somewhere along the line they stopped taking tech seriously. It's as if they would only review Saturday morning television shows. How could television like The Sopranos or Breaking Bad take root in the culture if there was no criticism that discussed it? Yet that's where we are today with software.' So, does software need a Siskel and Ebert (or A.O. Scott and Manohla Dargis for you highfalutin NYT readers!)?"

3 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. We need reliable reviews by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most reviews are shills ... companies have whole departments dedicated to getting bloggers to post sham reviews ...

  2. Re:Ebert already rated software by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ebert argues that unlike movies, video games can never really be considered works of art. Whether or not he is right is beside the point; I say he comes off as being rather conceited, since he reviews works of entertainment, not art, even though an entertaining movie could in time be considered a work of art as well. Perhaps he is not interested in video games, but in that case why not just say so instead of implying that games are not worth the time of a serious reviewer.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  3. Software "previews" are way longer than a movie... by Alomex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Part of the problem is that a critic can sit down for two hours watch a movie and write a meaningful review. This is not possible when it comes to software.

    Let me use a real life example: I was an early proponent of Java since my first few interactions with it in 1994 were positive. Only when I was is deep in the bowels of the beast did I start to see the problems: flawed parameter passing model, the "everything has to be an object" religion (which ironically is violated by built in data types), the "you must write a preamble bigger than COBOL's to have a well designed piece of code", the horrible graphics library that if first shipped with, etc.

    After that I realized that maybe moving to Java is not such a good idea after all. I think the popularity of C#/Haskell/Scala/C++11/Python are a result of this realization.