4 ms·

It boggles my mind that an article from barely over a year ago counts as "very ancient", that people clamor to add "(2006)" to article titles, etc. If more pro

It boggles my mind that an article from barely over a year ago counts as "very ancient", that people clamor to add "(2006)" to article titles, etc. If more programmers actually read stuff that was published longer than (gasp!) five years ago, perhaps there would be less naive noise about how New Methodology X is going to finally fix all these nagging issues in software development once and for all.

spacemanaki 16y ago
In Udo's defense, this article did cause a stir. That does make it seem like "ancient" history... Peter Seibel tried to "unpack some of the context," it's probably a good place to start for anyone who's interested: http://gigamonkeys.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/a-tale-of-two-rewrites/ http://gigamonkeys.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/a-tale-of-two-re...
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  What? How? It was only a year ago. Is Windows Vista ancient history? Sheesh.
  - Udo 16y ago
    Is Windows Vista ancient history? Sheesh. If only wishing made it so!
Udo 16y ago
Thanks for the demote, but I wasn't bashing the article on grounds of its age. If you had actually bothered to read the rest of my comment it would have become obvious that I was referring to the fact that people dig old stuff up and present it as news when the discussion itself has already moved on towards more insightful conclusions a few months ago.
- silentbicycle 16y ago
  I'm not demoting you (I mostly agree with you, actually), just noting that part of that lack of self-awareness comes from how many programmers seem to consider anything written more than a couple years ago obsolete. It makes sense when dealing with surface details in rapidly changing web APIs, but otherwise that approach condemns programmers to starting from zero and wasting time re-discovering fundamentals. "Mathematicians stand on each others' shoulders and computer scientists stand on each others' toes." — Richard Hamming
  - Udo 16y ago
    Sorry, I misunderstood then (probably because my comment got negative karma at the same time). To clarify: I don't think anything written more than a couple years ago is obsolete. But I do feel that this particular article by Joel already caused maximum havoc and people have moved on from it for a good reason. Otherwise I agree with you as well :-)
    - silentbicycle 16y ago
      My comment was nothing personal about you, but about the industry at large. While I've been programming since I was a kid, my academic background is in history - Viewing the industry through that lens reinforces how it's collectively in an early phase where people still fall to their deaths trying to fly with wings made of wax and feathers. There have been plenty of people with real breakthroughs, but the average programmer probably hasn't even heard of them. I mean, their work is already obsolete, right? See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1743145 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1743145

spacemanaki 16y ago

In Udo's defense, this article did cause a stir. That does make it seem like "ancient" history... Peter Seibel tried to "unpack some of the context," it's probably a good place to start for anyone who's interested: http://gigamonkeys.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/a-tale-of-two-rewrites/ http://gigamonkeys.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/a-tale-of-two-re...

silentbicycle 16y ago
What? How? It was only a year ago. Is Windows Vista ancient history? Sheesh.
- Udo 16y ago
  Is Windows Vista ancient history? Sheesh. If only wishing made it so!

Udo 16y ago

Thanks for the demote, but I wasn't bashing the article on grounds of its age. If you had actually bothered to read the rest of my comment it would have become obvious that I was referring to the fact that people dig old stuff up and present it as news when the discussion itself has already moved on towards more insightful conclusions a few months ago.

silentbicycle 16y ago
I'm not demoting you (I mostly agree with you, actually), just noting that part of that lack of self-awareness comes from how many programmers seem to consider anything written more than a couple years ago obsolete. It makes sense when dealing with surface details in rapidly changing web APIs, but otherwise that approach condemns programmers to starting from zero and wasting time re-discovering fundamentals. "Mathematicians stand on each others' shoulders and computer scientists stand on each others' toes." — Richard Hamming
- Udo 16y ago
  Sorry, I misunderstood then (probably because my comment got negative karma at the same time). To clarify: I don't think anything written more than a couple years ago is obsolete. But I do feel that this particular article by Joel already caused maximum havoc and people have moved on from it for a good reason. Otherwise I agree with you as well :-)
  - silentbicycle 16y ago
    My comment was nothing personal about you, but about the industry at large. While I've been programming since I was a kid, my academic background is in history - Viewing the industry through that lens reinforces how it's collectively in an early phase where people still fall to their deaths trying to fly with wings made of wax and feathers. There have been plenty of people with real breakthroughs, but the average programmer probably hasn't even heard of them. I mean, their work is already obsolete, right? See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1743145 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1743145