Learning (needlessly) hard technology
johndcook.com
Learning (needlessly) hard technology
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Learning (needlessly) hard technology
#2I often find people are a lot more focused on the technology than on actually solving problems. As well as having a flashy POC for the sales team I'm all for having a dead simple but working shell of app with no polish.
Re: Learning (needlessly) hard technology
#3Perhaps what is "needlessly" hard (whatever that really means) to one is the exact right solution for someone else?
Anyway, I can hardly think of a dumber way to spend my oh-so-valuable time then to spend it on learning a tech just because its "needlessly" hard (yes I know I'm overusing the parenthetical, for effect of course), but to each their own.
To be honest, learning it as a strategy to bump up one's rates could be considered a rather smart thing to do, but of course you had better understand the true economics of the move and know thy markets.
Aren't most of us interested in making (more) money?
It would be nice to know of what he is speaking of.
Re: Learning (needlessly) hard technology
#4>> If something really is unnecessarily complex, better alternatives are likely to arise, perhaps suddenly. (This assumes people are free to choose alternatives, not prohibited by law, for example.)
Not being free to pick alternatives is a common case. There are a lot of dev teams out there that have "approved technology lists". What gets on this list is decided by management and/or a lead architect. It can often be the case that simpler alternatives can't get used because they aren't approved.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I could see project management saying "no" to simpler solutions in the name of preserving the stability of a project. Besides, a sufficiently talented team should be able to work within such resource constraints and come up with creative solutions anyways.
Re: Learning (needlessly) hard technology
#5Bet it was kdb
Re: Learning (needlessly) hard technology
#6Good ol' accidental complexity and essential complexity.
There's a nontrivial amount of technologies that are complex and otherwise byzantine for no reason. Given the lack of alternatives, knowing the arcane tech inside and out can provide for a sustained stream of money, but that's hardly ethical.
Re: Learning (needlessly) hard technology
#7Seems to work well for SAP. I also have a suspicion that for example Java is so complicated because it was created by a consulting company - complex tech means high paid consultants.
Re: Learning (needlessly) hard technology
#8Seems to work well for SAP. I also have a suspicion that for example Java is so complicated because it was created by a consulting company - complex tech means high paid consultants.
I don't see how Java is more complicated than any other programming language. It certainly is not one of the more difficult ones. Assembly is complicated. C is arguably complicated. Java being complicated? I disagree.
Re: Learning (needlessly) hard technology
#9Perhaps what is "needlessly" hard (whatever that really means) to one is the exact right solution for someone else? Anyway, I can hardly think of a dumber way to spend my oh-so-valuable time then to spend it on learning a tech just because its "needlessly" hard (yes I know I'm overusing the parenthetical, for effect of course), but to each their own. To be honest, learning it as a strategy to bump up one's rates coul…
> Perhaps what is "needlessly" hard (whatever that really means) to one is the exact right solution for someone else?
Trying to be everything to everyone is one of the surest ways I know to generate byzantine monstrosities. On the other hand, it takes some real nerve and discipline to tell 'No, that is not really what our product is about' to a paying customer.
Re: Learning (needlessly) hard technology
#10Good ol' accidental complexity and essential complexity. There's a nontrivial amount of technologies that are complex and otherwise byzantine for no reason. Given the lack of alternatives, knowing the arcane tech inside and out can provide for a sustained stream of money, but that's hardly ethical.
To me the more interesting point is the high risk. Given that someone is using a needlessly complex technology, and given that they can't maintain it themselves, they actually do need someone who can handle the needlessly complex technology. So unless you're brownfielding, the practice isn't unethical. But it can still be high risk -- mainly, I guess, because of the high opportunity cost of coupling your expertise to suboptimal tech.