4 ms·

> LinkedIn has bet big on Ember. I like how as technologists we talk about "betting" on things. As if technology choices are like gambles.

daurnimator 10y ago
Aren't they? If there are two competing technologies, generally one will dominate, or more likely: both will be replaced by something new. You have to gamble that the technology you pick will stay relevant for long enough to be worth it.
- komali2 10y ago
  But if it works, how is it a gamble?
  - untog 10y ago
    Technology is often a moving target, particular when it's end-user facing. You're betting that your choices will allow you to keep moving with that target, rather than get left behind by the latest browser release, iOS release, Android release, etc. etc.
  - mateo411 10y ago
    You are choosing an outcome which you think will happen in the future. It is not certain that this outcome will happen.
    - inopinatus 10y ago
      I think a gamble needs to be predominantly a game of chance. Merely having an outcome that isn't certain would cause any choice to be labelled a "gamble", from crossing the road to turning on the kettle. Instead I believe choosing the right software platform is predominantly a game of skill and experience. Remember that old canard, "a poor craftsperson blames their tools"; the corollary is that a good craftsperson chooses good tools.
      - PeterisP 10y ago
        Sports betting is one of the most ancient and most popular form of gambling, even while the actual games are, as you say, games of skill and experience. A good craftsman can rationally choose tool A over tool B, however, for software platforms it is a major gamble whether A v2 will still be preferable to B v2 - it is (a) unknown, not decided by A being "better" than B, and (b) generally outside of your control.
        inopinatus 10y ago
        In sports betting, the gambler has no control over the parameters or the outcome of the game. Indeed when they do it is considered match fixing and may be illegal. In software tool/platform/protocol/standards selection, the person making the choice is a direct participant in the game, can control the local (and possibly global) quality of the outcome, and has (or should have) a priori knowledge of the characteristics and context that will shape the future viability of their choice. Sometimes that requires a really deep dive into technical documentation and/or source code; sometimes it means assessing product origins, or the community/ecosystem around it; sometimes it means looking for warning signs (e.g. patent encumbrance, a toxic vendor, unnecessary interoperability barriers, opaque licensing or pricing); it almost always means understanding the values & norms & preferences of the people who'll be bound by your choice. Usually a combination of all these things and more. The argument that we can't tell, in advance, doesn't wash with me; it is not borne out by my experience of being either the decision maker or decision victim, and just sounds like an excuse for a bad decision and/or poor execution. What happens later is people saying "I made a bet and lost", a terrible post-mortem that smacks of denial, and one I've heard all too often. But whenever I've make a wrong call - and I've made plenty over the years - there was always, always, always some factor that I missed. Whenever I've made a decision that turned out really well, it has always been on the back of research and analysis and reasoning, possibly (and increasingly with experience) guided by gut feeling. "I made a mistake, what can I learn from it?" is the only hindsight I tolerate for myself and strongly encourage in others, and it is not compatible with framing decision-making as a gamble.
  - lomnakkus 10y ago
    It's a choice between multiple (all workable) options. The "gamble" is about how well-supported (&c) those options will be in the future.
- nv-vn 10y ago
  Or you can just allocate your resources so that you're permanently safe with your choice.
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  My point is that's a broken attitude. I think Alan Kay likes to say software is a pop science and in pop science you bet on stuff because there are no other indicators of importance other than popularity.
__derek__ 10y ago
Given the fact of uncertainty about the future, investing in anything (e.g., building applications using a particular framework) is a gamble. Granted, the ability to re-write is a good hedge, but you're still hedging a bet.
sergiotapia 10y ago
They are bets. In the global market if you pick the wrong tool you severely limit your talent pool and upgrade path. Imagine being stuck on Marionette and Backbone these days. Tough to attract talent with old technology like that. And this is the global market. Imagine how worse it is if you want to hire local. Yikes.
- cdata 10y ago
  I hear this mentality a lot, but I wonder how true it is in practice. The pool of engineers who are experienced with your stack will be bigger if you pick a "winning" or "popular" stack. But in my experience at Big Co, the stack is as often proprietary as not, yet Big Co can attract talent anyway. Having lived through transitions from Popular Stack Today to Popular Stack Next more than once, I have yet to go through the experience thinking that the upgrade path is easy. Proto-jQuery to jQuery, jQuery to Backbone, Backbone to Angular, Angular to React, React to other React-like things... these frameworks were all "winners," but I can't describe the upgrade path without using the word "rewrite."
- inopinatus 10y ago
  That is not a bet. Choosing the wrong tool and blaming one's failure on "chance", on "losing a bet", is a classic case of denial. A smarter thing to say is "I made a mistake", and learn from it rather than denying it.
- Applejinx 10y ago
  Depends on what you're doing besides 'growing'.

daurnimator 10y ago

Aren't they? If there are two competing technologies, generally one will dominate, or more likely: both will be replaced by something new. You have to gamble that the technology you pick will stay relevant for long enough to be worth it.

komali2 10y ago
But if it works, how is it a gamble?
- untog 10y ago
  Technology is often a moving target, particular when it's end-user facing. You're betting that your choices will allow you to keep moving with that target, rather than get left behind by the latest browser release, iOS release, Android release, etc. etc.
- mateo411 10y ago
  You are choosing an outcome which you think will happen in the future. It is not certain that this outcome will happen.
  - inopinatus 10y ago
    I think a gamble needs to be predominantly a game of chance. Merely having an outcome that isn't certain would cause any choice to be labelled a "gamble", from crossing the road to turning on the kettle. Instead I believe choosing the right software platform is predominantly a game of skill and experience. Remember that old canard, "a poor craftsperson blames their tools"; the corollary is that a good craftsperson chooses good tools.
    - PeterisP 10y ago
      Sports betting is one of the most ancient and most popular form of gambling, even while the actual games are, as you say, games of skill and experience. A good craftsman can rationally choose tool A over tool B, however, for software platforms it is a major gamble whether A v2 will still be preferable to B v2 - it is (a) unknown, not decided by A being "better" than B, and (b) generally outside of your control.
      - inopinatus 10y ago
        In sports betting, the gambler has no control over the parameters or the outcome of the game. Indeed when they do it is considered match fixing and may be illegal. In software tool/platform/protocol/standards selection, the person making the choice is a direct participant in the game, can control the local (and possibly global) quality of the outcome, and has (or should have) a priori knowledge of the characteristics and context that will shape the future viability of their choice. Sometimes that requires a really deep dive into technical documentation and/or source code; sometimes it means assessing product origins, or the community/ecosystem around it; sometimes it means looking for warning signs (e.g. patent encumbrance, a toxic vendor, unnecessary interoperability barriers, opaque licensing or pricing); it almost always means understanding the values & norms & preferences of the people who'll be bound by your choice. Usually a combination of all these things and more. The argument that we can't tell, in advance, doesn't wash with me; it is not borne out by my experience of being either the decision maker or decision victim, and just sounds like an excuse for a bad decision and/or poor execution. What happens later is people saying "I made a bet and lost", a terrible post-mortem that smacks of denial, and one I've heard all too often. But whenever I've make a wrong call - and I've made plenty over the years - there was always, always, always some factor that I missed. Whenever I've made a decision that turned out really well, it has always been on the back of research and analysis and reasoning, possibly (and increasingly with experience) guided by gut feeling. "I made a mistake, what can I learn from it?" is the only hindsight I tolerate for myself and strongly encourage in others, and it is not compatible with framing decision-making as a gamble.
- lomnakkus 10y ago
  It's a choice between multiple (all workable) options. The "gamble" is about how well-supported (&c) those options will be in the future.
nv-vn 10y ago
Or you can just allocate your resources so that you're permanently safe with your choice.
dkarapetyan 10y ago
My point is that's a broken attitude. I think Alan Kay likes to say software is a pop science and in pop science you bet on stuff because there are no other indicators of importance other than popularity.

__derek__ 10y ago

Given the fact of uncertainty about the future, investing in anything (e.g., building applications using a particular framework) is a gamble. Granted, the ability to re-write is a good hedge, but you're still hedging a bet.

sergiotapia 10y ago

They are bets. In the global market if you pick the wrong tool you severely limit your talent pool and upgrade path. Imagine being stuck on Marionette and Backbone these days. Tough to attract talent with old technology like that. And this is the global market. Imagine how worse it is if you want to hire local. Yikes.

cdata 10y ago
I hear this mentality a lot, but I wonder how true it is in practice. The pool of engineers who are experienced with your stack will be bigger if you pick a "winning" or "popular" stack. But in my experience at Big Co, the stack is as often proprietary as not, yet Big Co can attract talent anyway. Having lived through transitions from Popular Stack Today to Popular Stack Next more than once, I have yet to go through the experience thinking that the upgrade path is easy. Proto-jQuery to jQuery, jQuery to Backbone, Backbone to Angular, Angular to React, React to other React-like things... these frameworks were all "winners," but I can't describe the upgrade path without using the word "rewrite."
inopinatus 10y ago
That is not a bet. Choosing the wrong tool and blaming one's failure on "chance", on "losing a bet", is a classic case of denial. A smarter thing to say is "I made a mistake", and learn from it rather than denying it.
Applejinx 10y ago
Depends on what you're doing besides 'growing'.