Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The obsession with next

37signals.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 55 posts

Re: The obsession with next

#21

Post by ozataman »

What makes sense depends entirely on the context. Sometimes, it needs to be realized that it will take time for technologies/solutions to mature. Other times, it will be more clear that a new technology has high prospects. It also depends on your team, the business model, the solution, etc.

The other side of the equation is the internal mechanics of large corporations. There are many that yearn new ideas and any form of innovation, "stirring of the pot" if you will, after decades of using the same winning strategy. They realize they are making bets on some new technologies, but the alternative is to stand back and lose by default. Surely, corporations of all sizes (and their people) often make strategic mistakes and take the wrong approach. But they also make some good decisions and there are many examples of new ideas emerging so fast that they put entire industry categories out of business.

I don't think it is right to issue blanket statements such as these. They feel more like a ranting for popularity than well thought-out observation. Different approaches might have varying levels of value at varying levels in the value chain. You might have a good strategy that works for you; you don't need to assault every other approach out there in order to stand out.

Re: The obsession with next

#22

Post by cal5k »

pragmatic wrote: post #15

Is it a tad odd that this comes from the RoR guys? Ruby + RoR in the mid to late 2000's was _the_ next language/framework. So it's ok for next as long as _you_ benefit, but not if it causes you inconvenience.

For us, "what's next" was Pivotal Tracker.

Re: The obsession with next

#23

Post by dasil003 »

zackham wrote: post #19
JonnieCache wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We're part of the greatest time in the history of the world IMO That's quite a claim. Technology must be advancing fast if you already have Muad'Dib's ability to perceive all of human history simultaneously as one infinite structure extending in both directions. How did I miss Steve Jobs getting the Arrakis fiefdom? Or could it be that Now is always the greatest part of history because it's by definition the only pa…

There's a simple argument to be made that the events that are unfolding in the course of our lifetimes have resulted in an unprecedented degree of societal and technological progress than ever before in the history of the world. You're offering a reasonable critique, but no alternative. I'd love to hear an argument for another period in history that might be a contender for being as or more "great".

The taming of fire may have been relatively more significant

Re: The obsession with next

#24

Post by JonnieCache »

zackham wrote: post #19
JonnieCache wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We're part of the greatest time in the history of the world IMO That's quite a claim. Technology must be advancing fast if you already have Muad'Dib's ability to perceive all of human history simultaneously as one infinite structure extending in both directions. How did I miss Steve Jobs getting the Arrakis fiefdom? Or could it be that Now is always the greatest part of history because it's by definition the only pa…

There's a simple argument to be made that the events that are unfolding in the course of our lifetimes have resulted in an unprecedented degree of societal and technological progress than ever before in the history of the world. You're offering a reasonable critique, but no alternative. I'd love to hear an argument for another period in history that might be a contender for being as or more "great".

The laying of the first transatlantic telegraph, to pluck an idea out of the air.

Or, the rise of Freud's ideas in society in the latter half of the 20th century.

Or, the change from hunter-gatherer societies to agrarianism.

Or, The Terror in france and the various other european uprisings of that time.

Or, lest we forget, WORLD WAR FUCKING TWO.

EDIT: I'm defining 'great' here as 'greatest change' because 'greatest progress' is ill-defined to the point of meaninglessness.

EDIT2: Here's another one: the invention of the 2" ABS plastic pipe and it's employment in sanitation and irrigation.

Although it obviously depends on how old you are as to whether or not that falls within "our lifetimes."

Re: The obsession with next

#25

Post by gloob »

zackham wrote: post #19
JonnieCache wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We're part of the greatest time in the history of the world IMO That's quite a claim. Technology must be advancing fast if you already have Muad'Dib's ability to perceive all of human history simultaneously as one infinite structure extending in both directions. How did I miss Steve Jobs getting the Arrakis fiefdom? Or could it be that Now is always the greatest part of history because it's by definition the only pa…

There's a simple argument to be made that the events that are unfolding in the course of our lifetimes have resulted in an unprecedented degree of societal and technological progress than ever before in the history of the world. You're offering a reasonable critique, but no alternative. I'd love to hear an argument for another period in history that might be a contender for being as or more "great".

Establishing the groundwork for this discussion:

What do you mean by "societal progress"? Do you mean things like reduction of poverty, or production of arts, or decrease in the frequency of mass murder, or some combination of all of the above and more? Or do you mean something else entirely?

What constitutes "technological progress"? Does the progression from a dozen websites to ten million constitute meaningful technological progress - is pushing ten thousand cars off an assembly line twice as progressive as a mere five thousand? Or do you mean actual innovation? In the case of the latter, how would you measure the rate of innovation today with that of earlier periods? (In principle, the number of patents granted per year should give you a rough idea of this, but (1) patents have only been around for a fairly short period of time, and (2) their actual value in measuring innovation is highly disputed).

Finally, you seem to imply in your last paragraph that the "greatness" of an era is a function of its social and technological progress, and no other factors. Is this reading correct? Or is the door open to other measures as well?

Re: The obsession with next

#26

Post by macrael »

This is the oldest bias there is. Singling out technology is a bit myopic, because as far as I can see, every field is obsessed with what's next. The sciences are an obvious example, the whole point is to discover something new and present it to your peers. Fashion is another easy example, no one cares what happened last year, they want to see this year's collection. Art was the first example I thought of: I once visited a museum in New Zealand filled with beautiful paintings by people no one has ever heard of. The main reason why? Their styles were not original. In each painting you could plainly see which master the artist took after.

Next is exciting and last is boring. That is how it will always be. Hoping that you are going to be written up in a NEWs paper for making your five year old product a little faster and more stable is wishful thinking.

This is not to belittle the importance of incremental improvements to existing products at all. Fixing small bugs and making your software more stable is incredibly important work that will make your customers happy, and make your software great. But it is not the New, so don't be surprised when most people don't care.

Re: The obsession with next

#27

Post by nhangen »

JonnieCache wrote: post #9
nhangen wrote: post #2

I think the obsession with next comes not because we're obsessed with new, but because we're excited about it! New technology, new ideas, new innovation - it's all happening at lightning speed. We're part of the greatest time in the history of the world IMO, and that's why we love next - we can't wait to see it. We're inventing fire, the wheel, and the printing press back to back. Whether we like it or not, next is t…

>We're part of the greatest time in the history of the world IMO That's quite a claim. Technology must be advancing fast if you already have Muad'Dib's ability to perceive all of human history simultaneously as one infinite structure extending in both directions. How did I miss Steve Jobs getting the Arrakis fiefdom? Or could it be that Now is always the greatest part of history because it's by definition the only pa…

Sure, that's a reasonable objection, but look at what our society has accomplished over the past 32 years of my lifetime:

1. The Internet, computers, and everything that comes with 2. DNA Mapping 3. Treatments and cures for hundreds of diseases and other maladies. 4. Private space travel 5. Sending a robot to Mars 6. Taming the elements to provide real natural energy

These are just a few things that get me excited, but the list could go on and on. I just can't think of another time in history when so much happened so fast.

Re: The obsession with next

#28

Post by JonnieCache »

nhangen wrote: post #27
JonnieCache wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We're part of the greatest time in the history of the world IMO That's quite a claim. Technology must be advancing fast if you already have Muad'Dib's ability to perceive all of human history simultaneously as one infinite structure extending in both directions. How did I miss Steve Jobs getting the Arrakis fiefdom? Or could it be that Now is always the greatest part of history because it's by definition the only pa…

Sure, that's a reasonable objection, but look at what our society has accomplished over the past 32 years of my lifetime: 1. The Internet, computers, and everything that comes with 2. DNA Mapping 3. Treatments and cures for hundreds of diseases and other maladies. 4. Private space travel 5. Sending a robot to Mars 6. Taming the elements to provide real natural energy These are just a few things that get me excited, b…

Many of those things only affect a tiny minority of, relatively speaking, incredibly rich people though. They will have knock on effects for the rest of the world, especially in the long term, but I submit that there are other events in human history that affected everyone on the planet at once, or at least very quickly.

An example would be plastic water piping for sanitation, as mentioned in my other comment.

I would also count the start of the Nuclear Age with the bombing of Hiroshima as something that affected almost everyone on earth by completely rebalancing the international political structure.

Re: The obsession with next

#29

Post by raghus »

twymer wrote: post #8

This post seems inspired from a discussion DHH had on twitter with @obie (founder of hashrocket) yesterday about people in their positions moving on to new ventures or staying for the long term of what they helped start. Obie's position was primarily that it's better to get out of your comfort zone and continue to create new things. (Discussion starting from http://twitter.com/#!/obie/status/39778057610997760 )

Is there way to follow a twitter conversation like a thread on HN with indented replies? Or maybe a 3rd party site that does that?

Re: The obsession with next

#30

Post by Nitramp »

smikhanov wrote: post #5
blehn wrote: post #3

The thing about software development is that the technology (tools) changes faster than you can evolve a product. Integrating new technologies into an existing product can be a real challenge. If all you do is evolve, there inevitably comes a point where your product is behind the curve. Basecamp and Fogbugz are good products that were probably great at some point, but now they just seem old and crusty compared to pr…

There are lots of hottest web startups out there that use LAMP as their primary stack. Even more, first version of Mint.com was written (horror!) in Java. The technology stack has absolutely nothing to do with your ability to keep the pace with competition.

I'm still pretty sure that if you pick your frameworks and tools right, Java can be a competitive development framework. If you go all Java Beans, EJB, etc, you might be in trouble, but it's not so much the language per se.
Post reply on HN