4 ms·

I think I understand what you're asking, and (I hope), that's also what I'm suggesting as an answer. That is, even though having a monoculture may feel vaguely

by mmt 8y ago

I think I understand what you're asking, and (I hope), that's also what I'm suggesting as an answer. That is, even though having a monoculture may feel vaguely off, for most people, conflict feels much more intensely off. In essence, arguing for monocultures is often synonymous with arguing for conflict avoidance or "just getting along".

taeric 8y ago
This makes sense. I'm not sure how I feel about it, right off. Are you asserting this is the majority of it? Or just a large portion? Other reasons I could see: a) It is easier to try and reimplement something than to try and build a bridge between old and new. b) Personal preference convinces people their choice in an implementation detail matters. (I mean, it definitely matters at a personal level. But to the end customer? Do they even know?) c) tooling is often very monoculture focused. (Though, this really just goes back to difficulty.)
- mmt 8y ago
  I'm asserting that conflict-avoidance is why, in general, monocultures might either actively be argued in favor of, or, more specifically, why nobody actively argues for (what I consider) the true opposite, which is dirversity of thought. I'm not necessarily saying that such a thought process would factor in, if it's never consciously brought up. > a) It is easier to try and reimplement something than to try and build a bridge between old and new. I've heard this described as "more fun" rather than "easier", though usually that's because the assertion is being used as a criticism. Still, what do you mean here, by "easier"? If the difficulty in the bridge-building is largely (or entirely) due to a inexpertness, discomfort, or (less charitably) laziness with dealing with different/diverse/old thought, my point still stands.
  - taeric 8y ago
    I don't think I meant it completely in those terms. Rather, I am pushing "easier" in a term that is more in line with "cheaper." Consider, it is cheaper to reimplement a framework into javascript than it is to port the language demonstrating the framework into the web platform. (I'm thinking of the general "reactive" methodologies here.) That said, I agree your point still stands. I was not trying to disprove it, but give it some complimentary points. That is, to help myself understand the point in the fine print, not just at the broad level. That make sense?
    - mmt 8y ago
      > Consider, it is cheaper to reimplement a framework into javascript than it is to port the language demonstrating the framework into the web platform. I'm not sure I follow what you mean here, though I admit I'm quite inexpert in this area. My primary exposure/interest (especially in reference to the original topic) is that of a sysadmin who's done building and porting of mostly open source software on diverse Unix platforms and some of the integration of build tools (including compilers) into existing processes... long long ago. > That make sense? It does. I don't think we're really disagreeing, either, just exploring the ideas around this.

by mmt 8y ago

taeric 8y ago

This makes sense. I'm not sure how I feel about it, right off. Are you asserting this is the majority of it? Or just a large portion? Other reasons I could see: a) It is easier to try and reimplement something than to try and build a bridge between old and new. b) Personal preference convinces people their choice in an implementation detail matters. (I mean, it definitely matters at a personal level. But to the end customer? Do they even know?) c) tooling is often very monoculture focused. (Though, this really just goes back to difficulty.)

mmt 8y ago
I'm asserting that conflict-avoidance is why, in general, monocultures might either actively be argued in favor of, or, more specifically, why nobody actively argues for (what I consider) the true opposite, which is dirversity of thought. I'm not necessarily saying that such a thought process would factor in, if it's never consciously brought up. > a) It is easier to try and reimplement something than to try and build a bridge between old and new. I've heard this described as "more fun" rather than "easier", though usually that's because the assertion is being used as a criticism. Still, what do you mean here, by "easier"? If the difficulty in the bridge-building is largely (or entirely) due to a inexpertness, discomfort, or (less charitably) laziness with dealing with different/diverse/old thought, my point still stands.
- taeric 8y ago
  I don't think I meant it completely in those terms. Rather, I am pushing "easier" in a term that is more in line with "cheaper." Consider, it is cheaper to reimplement a framework into javascript than it is to port the language demonstrating the framework into the web platform. (I'm thinking of the general "reactive" methodologies here.) That said, I agree your point still stands. I was not trying to disprove it, but give it some complimentary points. That is, to help myself understand the point in the fine print, not just at the broad level. That make sense?
  - mmt 8y ago
    > Consider, it is cheaper to reimplement a framework into javascript than it is to port the language demonstrating the framework into the web platform. I'm not sure I follow what you mean here, though I admit I'm quite inexpert in this area. My primary exposure/interest (especially in reference to the original topic) is that of a sysadmin who's done building and porting of mostly open source software on diverse Unix platforms and some of the integration of build tools (including compilers) into existing processes... long long ago. > That make sense? It does. I don't think we're really disagreeing, either, just exploring the ideas around this.