for micro vs. monolithic, why does it have to be versus decision? "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."
On software popularity
61–70 of 75 posts
Re: On software popularity
#62It's an interesting thought. I'm primarily a Ruby developer. Literally every single time I've started a web-oriented project using something like Sinatra or Padrino etc., I've ended up regretting it. I end up building a shitty, half-featured, buggy version of Rails. My experience is that most other projects end up the same. I suppose mileage may vary; perhaps it's easier to write bloated apps in Rails. I'm not convin…
I don't know anything about the libraries mentioned, but it sounds like you've decided that the Rails way is the correct way to do things, and then try to shoehorn that into the others.
Re: On software popularity
#63> When Rails was created, Ruby wasn't mainstream. When Twitter launched, Rails had been out for just four months. Adopting Ruby and Rails were bold moves made by people that didn't care about popularity. They were forced to assess the quality despite the lack of stars. Apparently they didn't do a good job since they've long since abandoned it.
On the other hand, while it's pretty obvious that Rails isn't appropriate for global-telecomunications-level infrastructure, it was a project that allowed Twitter to get off of the ground pretty quickly. That's a pretty valuable feature to have!
Re: On software popularity
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the problems with popularity is you will get a lot of mediocre developers who don't know what they are doing. You know, the people who pick up tools only because they think it will land them a job more easily. The same people who picked up VB. I understand that you're saying it's a bad practice to adopt a tool for reasons other than its utility in addressing a specific problem. But is it really so terrible for…
What I'm actually saying is a bit more subtle. There are types of developers who are very limited in what they can do. They learn some basic "tricks" in the form of "If write this magic spell, I get this magic result". These are the mediocre developers. They tend to pick some popular tool and try to market themselves as "an X developer" where X is something that's popular right now. Then there are developers who can…
At the same time, theres a very high amount of managers and HR who want someone who has worked in those libraries, period. They want people that will tell them "I'm an X developer".
Re: On software popularity
#65I think the article makes a good point. Counter-point: at least in the open source world, popularity can translate into lots of eyeballs on the code, lots of bug fixes, better ability to hunt down solutions on Google, hire people, etc. Counter-counter-point: lots of people depending on a project may slow its progress and prevent its maintainers from correcting fundamental design mistakes, all for fear of breaking exi…
In addition, popularity translates into more libraries, which constitutes a huge portion of a platform's value.
Re: On software popularity
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? If I'm running a business and I intersect closely between the business side and software side of the company, but need help on the side. I'm hiring for the stack that I use and already understand. It's not mediocrity, it's called playing to your advantages.
Why not hire smart people who can learn your stack?
how many smart people are there compared to the current appetite for software?
Re: On software popularity
#67Mainstream stuff isn't necessarily the best, but it's "good enough". The big benefit isn't the product itself, but a market effect: multiple third-party add-ons and service will be available. Bugs and gaps will have been found and gaffa taped. A large skilled employee pool, commodity-priced.
Basically, "if we all make the same mistake, it will be worth someone's while to take care of us" (baby boomer effect).
This is what makes established products unreasonably difficult to dislodge (from a technical perspective).
At the other end of the capability spectrum, Alan Kay said there's an exception to the rule to reuse not reinvent: those who can make their own tools should.
Re: On software popularity
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are correct, I don't think he means popular ideas are likely to be wrong. Just more likely to be misused or misapplied. As in the linked article, they received a lot of advice to use rails not because it was the right tool for the job but because it was the popular tool for a vaguely similar job. Also no one had the knowledge to comment on their selected tool because it wasn't the popular tool.
As a developer in the "out-back" (California Central Valley / Sacramento area), I find it a bit funny watching somebody who gets to use Ruby (at all) angsting over which framework to use. At least they have escaped the XML-Hell trap that is JEE. I'm happy for the guy that he gets to do anything at all beyond that which is promoted by Oracle or Microsoft. I suppose Google might belong on the list of "Promoters not to…
"JEE"
"Oracle or Microsoft"
Would any self-respecting programmer follow along with such idiocy if they were not paid to do so?
Re: On software popularity
#69"Following the crowd is easy, but it's often a shortcut to the wrong place."
In the first place, if the product does not work well, it won't even get much attention or popularity. There are reasons why products got massively popular in the first place.
Re: On software popularity
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I'm actually saying is a bit more subtle. There are types of developers who are very limited in what they can do. They learn some basic "tricks" in the form of "If write this magic spell, I get this magic result". These are the mediocre developers. They tend to pick some popular tool and try to market themselves as "an X developer" where X is something that's popular right now. Then there are developers who can…
At the same time, theres a very high amount of managers and HR who want someone who has worked in those libraries, period. They want people that will tell them "I'm an X developer".
I think that companies managed by these types are being naturally-selected out of the software products market.