4 ms·

I don't know. My industry (defense/aerospace contracting) is still infatuated with Java/C++ and Object-Oriented Design as the universal solution to all problem

by jcadam 9y ago

I don't know. My industry (defense/aerospace contracting) is still infatuated with Java/C++ and Object-Oriented Design as the universal solution to all problems. It's like being stuck in the 1990s. This is the flip-side to age-discrimination - it's much less of a problem in my industry. Which, as a 37-year-old I find comforting. But when you're stuck working for 50-something pathologically risk-averse architects who built their careers on the over-hyped tech of the previous century and refuse to listen to new ideas, it's quite frustrating. I'm basically waiting for the previous generation to die/retire so I can have the chance to build software the way I think it should be built. I may just leave the field altogether and hack on Lisp in my spare time :)

oblio 9y ago
> I'm basically waiting for the previous generation to die/retire so I can have the chance to build software the way I think it should be built. And by the time you'll be able to do that you'll be the 50-something who keeps using functional programming while the 37-year-olds want to use dilithium crystal programming :p
- mercer 9y ago
  While you're joking, one thing that appeals to me about my recent dive into functional programming is that it strikes me as knowledge that is 'fundamental' enough that it'll never disappear or become irrelevant.
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    Exactly like OOP!
    - jcadam 9y ago
      Though, I'll point out that my problem is not necessarily with OOP, but OOD. OOP can be quite useful in some situations, such as modeling and simulation :) Of course the design of the Java language is predicated around the idea that OOD is the one true way to design large software systems and thus must be forced by the language itself, and that is the primary reason I hate it.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> But when you're stuck working for 50-something pathologically risk-averse architects... Defense/aerospace is pathologically risk-averse. It's not just your set of architects. If you want them to listen to new ideas, propose it on something that is not mission-critical. Prove it can work there, and prove the benefits. After you've done that (more than once), they may be willing to at least listen.

by jcadam 9y ago

oblio 9y ago

> I'm basically waiting for the previous generation to die/retire so I can have the chance to build software the way I think it should be built. And by the time you'll be able to do that you'll be the 50-something who keeps using functional programming while the 37-year-olds want to use dilithium crystal programming :p

mercer 9y ago
While you're joking, one thing that appeals to me about my recent dive into functional programming is that it strikes me as knowledge that is 'fundamental' enough that it'll never disappear or become irrelevant.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  Exactly like OOP!
  - jcadam 9y ago
    Though, I'll point out that my problem is not necessarily with OOP, but OOD. OOP can be quite useful in some situations, such as modeling and simulation :) Of course the design of the Java language is predicated around the idea that OOD is the one true way to design large software systems and thus must be forced by the language itself, and that is the primary reason I hate it.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

> But when you're stuck working for 50-something pathologically risk-averse architects... Defense/aerospace is pathologically risk-averse. It's not just your set of architects. If you want them to listen to new ideas, propose it on something that is not mission-critical. Prove it can work there, and prove the benefits. After you've done that (more than once), they may be willing to at least listen.