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

When did our tools become our religion?

vanschneider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: When did our tools become our religion?

#51

Post by Jupe »

danbruc wrote: post #37

If it was only arguing about equally good tools, but sometimes actively choosing the worse tools is beyond me. XML and SOAP were perfectly fine and mature solutions with a lot of optional bells and whistles, but no, we have to invent and religiously use JSON and REST which are inferior in almost any way. And then we reinvent everything we already had - we invent JSON schema to replace XSD, we invent Swagger to replac…

And the other two halves are gRPC and GraphQL...

Perhaps a Monty Python Shoe vs. Gourd reference would illustrate...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk&t=44s

Re: When did our tools become our religion?

#52

Post by _a_a_a_ »

danbruc wrote: post #49
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel you're trolling. SOAP was a horror and REST is nothing to do with data formats. And while XML was fine, XML schemas were hellish and I've awful memory of them. > and now half of the services are SOAP and half of them are REST which seems to contradict in tone your first sentence.

[...] and REST is nothing to do with data formats. In theory yes, but in practice almost no one builds anything that comes close to the initial vision of REST, in practice, i.e. the way the term is commonly used, REST means little more than we push around JSON via HTTP and maybe the HTTP method indicates what operation I want to do. And REST I mentioned with Swagger in comparison to SOAP and WSDL, not to JSON or XML.

Perhaps you could explain what that means, given REST is defined fairly well in Fielding's dissertation, and fits in quite well with pushing data around with the HTTP method indicating the operation. Wat else?

Re: When did our tools become our religion?

#53

Post by madrox »

marcosdumay wrote: post #34
madrox wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard it differently, but is a corollary: bad tools make it easy for bad developers to do bad things. Good tools make it easy for bad developers to do good things.

Bad tools make it hard for good developers to do good things, and good tools make it easy for good developers to to good things. Why do you care about bad developers? They won't do good things either way.

We should all care about bad developers because if they make bad products sooner or later you or I will use one! Bad developers are the ones who store your password credentials and personal information in plain text. We should all care about making it easier to do things the right way because then the right way happens more often.

This is one of those things that are obvious in the specific, but we're talking in abstract terms.

Re: When did our tools become our religion?

#54

Post by Mountain_Skies »

the_third_wave wrote: post #10

They're not a religion in any sense of the word. A culture, maybe. A religion? Nay, never. OK, I'll make an exception for Emacs users. And Lisp users, them as well seeing how as both sort of fit in the same pews. Apple also has attracted a pious crowd so they also get an exception, especially given the sacrifices which its followers make, the regular pilgrimages to the Holy Store where the latest sacrament is purchas…

The Apple religion seems to have devolved down to simple classism. Back in the 80s, Apple really pushed the "us vs them" othering angle but now Apple is for everyone, as long as you can afford it.

Re: When did our tools become our religion?

#55

Post by danbruc »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #52
danbruc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[...] and REST is nothing to do with data formats. In theory yes, but in practice almost no one builds anything that comes close to the initial vision of REST, in practice, i.e. the way the term is commonly used, REST means little more than we push around JSON via HTTP and maybe the HTTP method indicates what operation I want to do. And REST I mentioned with Swagger in comparison to SOAP and WSDL, not to JSON or XML.

Perhaps you could explain what that means, given REST is defined fairly well in Fielding's dissertation, and fits in quite well with pushing data around with the HTTP method indicating the operation. Wat else?

HATEOAS [1], i.e. you discover the available operations dynamically. In my opinion totally impractical unless the service is directly consumed by humans or you are building some kind of naked objects application [2] with all its implications. But this is what really distinguished REST from other remote procedure call implementations and this is also what essentially nobody does.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HATEOAS

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_objects

Re: When did our tools become our religion?

#57

Post by thewebcount »

I can't speak for others, but I'm currently going through a very painful time tools-wise. We've switched to a new workflow with all new tools and there are several objective ways in which they make my life harder. There was, of course, the learning curve that any new tool has in the first few weeks/months. It's been 2 years, and I'm still getting slowed down every damn day by these horrible tools. It's not that I haven't learned them, it's that they are objectively worse than what we had before. (And what we had before had a number of issues, too.) I will fervently let others know of the potential pitfalls of the tools I'm forced to use by my employer. It may make me sound like I'm being religious, but really, I'm just trying to warn others what they're getting themselves into.

Re: When did our tools become our religion?

#58

Post by drewcoo »

jerf wrote: post #43
bloblaw wrote: post #16

FTA: > Otherwise, the only thing that matters is that the tool works. Every tool comes with its own upsides and downsides, but most of them are increasingly the same. They mostly differ in workflow. But I can promise you: they all draw rectangles equally as well. If you can accomplish your work with the tool, then it serves its purpose. Eevee dismissed with that argument succinctly when they wrote in their "PHP: a fr…

As the saying goes, it is a poor craftworker who blames their tools... but the popular understanding in our community that it means a craftworker should be able to do anything with crappy tools is wrong. The real meaning is that it's a poor craftworker who has crappy tools, but just keeps using them. They should either fix them or get better tools. It is a poor craftworker who blames their tools because it is a poor…

> The real meaning is that it's a poor craftworker who has crappy tools, but just keeps using them

The "real meaning" of a common aphorism is the one that's obvious to everyone. That's the point of aphorisms.

If common aphorisms needed special "truth knowers" to explain them, then the words themselves might qualify as religion.

Re: When did our tools become our religion?

#59

Post by jerf »

drewcoo wrote: post #58
jerf wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the saying goes, it is a poor craftworker who blames their tools... but the popular understanding in our community that it means a craftworker should be able to do anything with crappy tools is wrong. The real meaning is that it's a poor craftworker who has crappy tools, but just keeps using them. They should either fix them or get better tools. It is a poor craftworker who blames their tools because it is a poor…

> The real meaning is that it's a poor craftworker who has crappy tools, but just keeps using them The "real meaning" of a common aphorism is the one that's obvious to everyone. That's the point of aphorisms. If common aphorisms needed special "truth knowers" to explain them, then the words themselves might qualify as religion.

I don't live in Silicon Valley. I live in a place where trades are a much bigger portion of the economy, and much of my social circle is in them. This is the common meaning that everyone else around me knows. I've explained the programmer meaning of "it's OK to stick with bad tools and you should just expect the user's skills to make up the difference" to the people who actually work with physicals tools in the trades, and it is met with either befuddlement or open laughter. No one who actually works with physical tools for a living could possibly think what programmers think about tools. You only need to experience once in your life the night-and-day transition from a blunt saw to a sharp one to get it. A skilled user of saws does not sit there bashing away at wood with a blunt saw and expecting their "skill" to cut the wood. No job foreman will sit there watching you bash away with a dull saw and smile approvingly because he knows you're making it up with "skill".

This is a peculiarly programmer misconception of an aphorism that predates the entire industry of programming.

Re: When did our tools become our religion?

#60

Post by mc32 »

mikestew wrote: post #33
mc32 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I want Alice Chalmers ;)

Minor nitpick: Ms. Chalmers did not make tractors. Two dudes named Allis and Chalmers did.

Aww, dangnit, you're right. I think you could run them old models on Kerosene or Gasoline.

They were real simple -easy to maintain by a small farmer.

Post reply on HN