3 ms·

I completely agree and I'm excited about this vision for Meteor. The dream would be to have a go-to choice with formidable standards that Just Works. Personall

by d0m 11y ago

I completely agree and I'm excited about this vision for Meteor. The dream would be to have a go-to choice with formidable standards that Just Works. Personally, what I wish existed was a full-stack framework AND dev ops built with the "best" open source libraries. I'm fine with not having my favorite X if it means having a set of well supported, highly performant with lots of documentation and training materials services that work perfectly together. Starting a new project the "right way" is a pain right now. Again, I would gladly trade my favorite libraries/tools for a great full-stack solution (including dev ops, continuous integration, roll-back deployment, scalable servers, etc etc.) Software engineering is still a new field and it's hard to establish "best ways of doing things", but I'm wondering if it'll start converging to "The Proper Way". Similar to how building houses is pretty straightforward. Of course, part of the reason that it's hard to do in software engineering is because technology keep changing so fast.. I.e. Tools from a few years ago will most likely not play well with VR stuff.

jonesb6 11y ago
I'd strongly disagree with the idea that we need or even want one ring to rule them all. Remember different frameworks are designed to solve different problems in different ways [1][2]. Anyone who has dug deep enough into a framework or tool-set will be able to write out a very long list of unique quarks, gotchas, caveats, hidden strengths/weaknesses, and what have you. It's those differences that will make one framework more valuable in a given domain then the other, we want that because there are many, many, domains to conquer in software engineering. IMO, innovation stops when we believe we've found "the best way of doing things". I'm all excited to check out Meteor too, but I'm not getting in line at the Apple store, I mean full-stack framework store, on the day of release to be a guinea pig for the "new best thing" at my personal expense (time). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework)
- kevan 11y ago
  What if we replace "best" with "good enough for most common uses"? Most of the roads and bridges we build today aren't pinnacles of innovation, they're just good enough that we don't bother optimizing them much more. With how young the software engineering field is I don't think we'll get to this point in the near future, but part of me looks forward to a day when we have widely accepted standard solutions to common problems that don't go out of style for decades.
  - jonesb6 11y ago
    I think there is a difference between "just good enough" and "has reached maximum efficiency". I think a lot of people want to settle at the first one, yet I see the second one nowhere in sight.
eyko 11y ago
> Similar to how building houses is pretty straightforward. Because we've been doing it for decades. The railroad wasn't straightforward to build when it first started. After a century there sure are lessons learnt. The conventional apartment building, or the conventional sky scraper, are not in the same league as some mega construction projects out there, so it's not always "straightforward". Even though most startups and enterprises are solving very similar basic problems, the field itself is still quite young and open to innovation. In a century, perhaps building fairly complex social network with fairly high traffic might be as straightforward as setting up a Medium account, but we're not there. Like you said, there are many issues that are not easy problems to solve yet: dev ops, CI, etc.

by d0m 11y ago

jonesb6 11y ago

I'd strongly disagree with the idea that we need or even want one ring to rule them all. Remember different frameworks are designed to solve different problems in different ways [1][2]. Anyone who has dug deep enough into a framework or tool-set will be able to write out a very long list of unique quarks, gotchas, caveats, hidden strengths/weaknesses, and what have you. It's those differences that will make one framework more valuable in a given domain then the other, we want that because there are many, many, domains to conquer in software engineering. IMO, innovation stops when we believe we've found "the best way of doing things". I'm all excited to check out Meteor too, but I'm not getting in line at the Apple store, I mean full-stack framework store, on the day of release to be a guinea pig for the "new best thing" at my personal expense (time). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework)

kevan 11y ago
What if we replace "best" with "good enough for most common uses"? Most of the roads and bridges we build today aren't pinnacles of innovation, they're just good enough that we don't bother optimizing them much more. With how young the software engineering field is I don't think we'll get to this point in the near future, but part of me looks forward to a day when we have widely accepted standard solutions to common problems that don't go out of style for decades.
- jonesb6 11y ago
  I think there is a difference between "just good enough" and "has reached maximum efficiency". I think a lot of people want to settle at the first one, yet I see the second one nowhere in sight.

eyko 11y ago

> Similar to how building houses is pretty straightforward. Because we've been doing it for decades. The railroad wasn't straightforward to build when it first started. After a century there sure are lessons learnt. The conventional apartment building, or the conventional sky scraper, are not in the same league as some mega construction projects out there, so it's not always "straightforward". Even though most startups and enterprises are solving very similar basic problems, the field itself is still quite young and open to innovation. In a century, perhaps building fairly complex social network with fairly high traffic might be as straightforward as setting up a Medium account, but we're not there. Like you said, there are many issues that are not easy problems to solve yet: dev ops, CI, etc.