3 ms·

It's true that users don't care if you're using RoR or have load balanced servers or or replicated databases or anything like that. However, users do care abou

by mdasen 17y ago

It's true that users don't care if you're using RoR or have load balanced servers or or replicated databases or anything like that. However, users do care about what those things provide. Load balanced servers means their requests are likely to be met without large slowdowns. Replicated databases means your application will have better uptime. RoR could mean that you're able to add features more easily. We care about this technology because it allows us to provide a better end result. We talk about it internally because we want to share our successes and failures so that we can educate and learn from our peers and create better end results for the average user. I don't care why my house stays up, but I'm glad that there are people (line engineers and architects) who do so that I have a wonderful, stable home. We're the architects of the web.

sthomps 17y ago
I agree. I am also grateful for engineers that keep websites running properly and quickly. I can't stand it when a website is slow or doesn't work. I have an equal appreciation for those engineers as well as the ones that allow us to have a roof that stays up or a bridge that doesn't collapse. Engineers to engineers of course need to care about the technology. However, in terms of design, so many products seem to forget about the core user of their product and their needs.
jdietrich 17y ago
I think the real point of the article is that almost all of the technologies at our disposal are good enough. We spend endless time debating Ruby vs Python, RoR vs Django and navel gazing about Lisp or Haskell or Smalltalk, but how often do we talk about users? Keep a tally yourself and I think you'll see my point - I counted more HN articles in the past week about Haskell than about users. I would expect that the majority of us here at HN can easily build stable, reasonably scalable applications quite easily. I would expect that far fewer of us really understand the needs, desires and abilities of the average user. To me, it seems ridiculous that we continue to worry about marginal, incremental improvements in the technology when it is readily apparent that "technically better" solutions are easily beaten in the market by solutions that resonate better with users. To use your architecture analogy, few architects worry about whether or not a house will stay up, because they have mature processes and frameworks in place to guarantee the soundness of the design. The real work of architects, the part that separates the likes of Foster and Gehry from everyone else, is of aesthetics and usability. What makes an architect great is not their ability to build cheaper or stronger or bigger buildings, but their ability to build beautiful and elegant ones. We have a great deal to learn from them.
- sthomps 17y ago
  Thank you for that wonderful response. The analogy about the architects is spot on. The technology debate is always raging about which platform and language to use. The people present in the tech world can easily forget about the users with all of the technology present. The last statement in your second paragraph is especially wise, and the ability to resonate with users is the absolute key.
- rue 17y ago
  > I think the real point of the article is that almost all > of the technologies at our disposal are good enough. We > spend endless time debating Ruby vs Python, RoR vs Django > and navel gazing about Lisp or Haskell or Smalltalk, but > how often do we talk about users? Frankly, I do not see any shortage of talk about "users" or "delivering" or any other of hundreds of similar terms. I think this line of reasoning overlooks some pretty crucial factors: - Arguing about X vs. Y beyond a certain point often has nothing to do with "productivity" or some other undefinable metric. It is entertainment. Not ha-ha entertainment, but something to pass the time - trading quips, debating and so on. - New paradigms, languages, frameworks and applications - as well as hardware and architecture - certainly affect users. Some directly, some by providing developers the ability to concentrate on the essence rather than the unnecessary boilerplate obstacles. It often seems that the people writing the "stop language wars" posts and the like are the ones most emotionally invested in the topic. > To use your architecture analogy, few architects worry > about whether or not a house will stay up, because they > have mature processes and frameworks in place to > guarantee the soundness of the design. Yeah, and those processes did not just spring up from nothing. There have been centuries, millennia, of development - and you can be sure there were more than a few "pyramid vs. cube" and "vaulted vs. flat" debates in there.
- aswanson 17y ago
  I've thought about this on a parallel track. It seems to me that each iteration of a technology makes it easier to create and deploy, until it reaches a point where the only thing that matters are aesthetic capabilities.

by mdasen 17y ago

sthomps 17y ago

I agree. I am also grateful for engineers that keep websites running properly and quickly. I can't stand it when a website is slow or doesn't work. I have an equal appreciation for those engineers as well as the ones that allow us to have a roof that stays up or a bridge that doesn't collapse. Engineers to engineers of course need to care about the technology. However, in terms of design, so many products seem to forget about the core user of their product and their needs.

jdietrich 17y ago

I think the real point of the article is that almost all of the technologies at our disposal are good enough. We spend endless time debating Ruby vs Python, RoR vs Django and navel gazing about Lisp or Haskell or Smalltalk, but how often do we talk about users? Keep a tally yourself and I think you'll see my point - I counted more HN articles in the past week about Haskell than about users. I would expect that the majority of us here at HN can easily build stable, reasonably scalable applications quite easily. I would expect that far fewer of us really understand the needs, desires and abilities of the average user. To me, it seems ridiculous that we continue to worry about marginal, incremental improvements in the technology when it is readily apparent that "technically better" solutions are easily beaten in the market by solutions that resonate better with users. To use your architecture analogy, few architects worry about whether or not a house will stay up, because they have mature processes and frameworks in place to guarantee the soundness of the design. The real work of architects, the part that separates the likes of Foster and Gehry from everyone else, is of aesthetics and usability. What makes an architect great is not their ability to build cheaper or stronger or bigger buildings, but their ability to build beautiful and elegant ones. We have a great deal to learn from them.

sthomps 17y ago
Thank you for that wonderful response. The analogy about the architects is spot on. The technology debate is always raging about which platform and language to use. The people present in the tech world can easily forget about the users with all of the technology present. The last statement in your second paragraph is especially wise, and the ability to resonate with users is the absolute key.
rue 17y ago
> I think the real point of the article is that almost all > of the technologies at our disposal are good enough. We > spend endless time debating Ruby vs Python, RoR vs Django > and navel gazing about Lisp or Haskell or Smalltalk, but > how often do we talk about users? Frankly, I do not see any shortage of talk about "users" or "delivering" or any other of hundreds of similar terms. I think this line of reasoning overlooks some pretty crucial factors: - Arguing about X vs. Y beyond a certain point often has nothing to do with "productivity" or some other undefinable metric. It is entertainment. Not ha-ha entertainment, but something to pass the time - trading quips, debating and so on. - New paradigms, languages, frameworks and applications - as well as hardware and architecture - certainly affect users. Some directly, some by providing developers the ability to concentrate on the essence rather than the unnecessary boilerplate obstacles. It often seems that the people writing the "stop language wars" posts and the like are the ones most emotionally invested in the topic. > To use your architecture analogy, few architects worry > about whether or not a house will stay up, because they > have mature processes and frameworks in place to > guarantee the soundness of the design. Yeah, and those processes did not just spring up from nothing. There have been centuries, millennia, of development - and you can be sure there were more than a few "pyramid vs. cube" and "vaulted vs. flat" debates in there.
aswanson 17y ago
I've thought about this on a parallel track. It seems to me that each iteration of a technology makes it easier to create and deploy, until it reaches a point where the only thing that matters are aesthetic capabilities.