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

Embracing “Old” Tech

blogs.newardassociates.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: Embracing “Old” Tech

#21

Post by mpldr »

dgb23 wrote: post #14

> The point is, the things we use to build applications are in a constant state of evolution and change. Evolution and change are great! The article misses a deeper issue though. There is tech that evolves with breakage (PHP, large parts of the JS ecosystem etc.) and tech that evolves with compatible change (Go, Java, Clojure etc.) There shouldn’t be anything wrong with starting on v(N-1). But there is something fund…

This. So much this. It's fine to not use the latest version, but use a supported version. If the version is EOL, don't use it. Even if you have backports. Otherwise you will inevitably run into issues where the system is insecure by-design. I can't ssh into half the servers because I have to first enable insecure algorithms, the PHP version is almost old enough to drink, and the Debian mirrors don't even serve this version anymore.

Sure, the system is stable. Until somebody finds it, then it can be a threat to the entire network.

Re: Embracing “Old” Tech

#22

Post by callahad »

trhoad wrote: post #15

I can't take this article seriously when it refers to Next but then calls it Nest 15 times.

I'd recommend trying again; none of the article's message is specific to or contingent on Next, and it'd be a shame to dismiss it over something so superficial.

Re: Embracing “Old” Tech

#23

Post by lp4vn »

The main theme of the article was: should I start with stable old tech or go to unstable new tech right away?

First the author links to an article called "the Fallacies of Enterprise Computing" that I honestly didn't read but it's about debunking a fallacy "New technology is always better than old technology". Then he uses the case of python3 vs python2 for making the case that a lot of people worked successfully with python2 while python3 was unproven and finishes with a non-sequitur question: so why should stable old tech be recommended and used [in face of unstable new technology]?

He argues in favour of old tech because, 1. new tech will be buggy, 2. you can't wait for the new version to be stable, 3. you will have to rewrite your project anyway to a new version some day, 4. technical debt is inevitable and not that bad.

His conclusion is to develop with an old stable version and upgrade to a new version when the new version gets stable.

Except for the first point, the one about the bugs, I'm not even sure that points 2, 3 and 4 even help his case. In fact I could easily use them to argue in favour of starting a project right away with unstable new tech.

I might be a dumb guy and I might not have understood entirely the point of the author, but I don't like this kind of article. For me it all looks an incoherent assemblage of phrase of effects crafted with the intent of being provocative rather than having some real content. Props to the author for putting the effort of writing an article, but that's all of positive that I can say about it, the rest sounds only like platitudes.

Re: Embracing “Old” Tech

#24

Post by FollowingTheDao »

dgb23 wrote: post #14

> The point is, the things we use to build applications are in a constant state of evolution and change. Evolution and change are great! The article misses a deeper issue though. There is tech that evolves with breakage (PHP, large parts of the JS ecosystem etc.) and tech that evolves with compatible change (Go, Java, Clojure etc.) There shouldn’t be anything wrong with starting on v(N-1). But there is something fund…

> Don’t embrace “old” tech! Embrace _stable_ tech.

This is why I used Debian Linux.

Re: Embracing “Old” Tech

#25

Post by izacus »

drewcoo wrote: post #8
Aloha wrote: post #4

I live in a world on the trailing edge. Sometimes the best of the last generation is better than the new of the next. While I don't know how strongly this author makes that case, it's true in a general sense.

These days a generation (major version) can be under a year. How far back do you lag to feel safe?

Changing a number doesn't equal a generation. Just because 15 javascript frameworks have reimplemented the same idea, it doesn't mean a generation actually changed.

Re: Embracing “Old” Tech

#26

Post by NerdiOrg »

aobdev wrote: post #5

Heads up to the author in case you’re here, you reference a tweet about Next.js but subsequently refer to it as “Nest”.

Completely agree. I could care less if it's not about Next. The fact that nobody caught this when proof reading says it all. Probably written by a Jr dev or non-techy writer.

Re: Embracing “Old” Tech

#27

Post by FollowingTheDao »

Aloha wrote: post #4

I live in a world on the trailing edge. Sometimes the best of the last generation is better than the new of the next. While I don't know how strongly this author makes that case, it's true in a general sense.

Me too. I wait a year or so to let everyone buy the wrong tech and buy the right stuff for cheap in their wake.

Re: Embracing “Old” Tech

#28

Post by NerdiOrg »

callahad wrote: post #22
trhoad wrote: post #15

I can't take this article seriously when it refers to Next but then calls it Nest 15 times.

I'd recommend trying again; none of the article's message is specific to or contingent on Next, and it'd be a shame to dismiss it over something so superficial.

Eh, I disagree. It's a tech article and the writer clearly isn't familiar enough with the topic to catch this issue. It shows they are not actually really close to the tech or if they are, they don't proofread their articles.

Re: Embracing “Old” Tech

#29

Post by FollowingTheDao »

NerdiOrg wrote: post #26
aobdev wrote: post #5

Heads up to the author in case you’re here, you reference a tweet about Next.js but subsequently refer to it as “Nest”.

Completely agree. I could care less if it's not about Next. The fact that nobody caught this when proof reading says it all. Probably written by a Jr dev or non-techy writer.

...or it could have been written by someone with a disability. Man you all can be so intolerant. Does it change the facts in the article? No? then whatever, get over it.

Re: Embracing “Old” Tech

#30

Post by NerdiOrg »

Was very interested in the article, but after 2 Nest 12 references I started questioning their credibility, and after a bunch more of the same error, I realized the author has probably never used Next. Some people here are saying it shouldn't matter. Of course it should. The author picked a tech for the analogy, most likely one they know the most about. And yet they call it Nest... which means they most likely aren't actually close to the development workflow whatsoever.
Post reply on HN