3 ms·
> I cannot stress this enough; fear of learning is anathema to software, and trying to hide it behind a veneer of caution is not only disingenuous but potential
by outworlder 7y ago
> I cannot stress this enough; fear of learning is anathema to software, and trying to hide it behind a veneer of caution is not only disingenuous but potentially malicious as well, maximizing exclusively for the benefit of the individual against the interests of the group.
This is wrong.
You are ultimately getting paid to solve the company's problems. If those problems actually require deployment of a new technology to satisfy the requirements, then it is fine. Note that I said satisfy requirements, not exceed them.
But more often than not, * that's not the case *. If your queue requirements can be served with PostgreSQL, and you already have it, then why not? To do otherwise would be over engineering.
Because you may know a new and fancy technology that would be objectively better. Cool. Now, do you have enough know-how in the company to use it effectively? Do you know what the best practices are? Can you deploy, monitor, audit and patch this in production? If you have answered NO to any of those questions, you'll either hire people or you shouldn't deploy. Period.
And if you have only one person answering YES to the previous questions, you still shouldn't deploy it. Because one day that person will leave, and you are now left the company in a worse situation than it was before. For no reason other than satisfying your engineering itch.
THAT is anathema to working, reliable production software. Toys, you can do whatever.
If you want to introduce something new, you can. But you need to do it responsibly. It needs a reason to exist - a valid reason, not "it's better". How does it being "better" help the company? Will it reduce costs? Maintenance? Future development work will happen faster? Will it make a faster user experience? Scale to the projected company growth?
It will have a cost that will have to be accounted for – including opportunity costs.
> By trying to use one tool for everything, you lose out on all kinds of optimizations, features, and performance enhancements that are specific to the problem you're trying to solve.
You only care about this if you have a reason to care about this. Otherwise it's all irrelevant.
- dimino 7y agoSorry, but what you call a "toy", I call a highly reliable technology that's used in production widely across the majority of Fortune 500 companies. No one here is suggesting anything remotely like what you're strawmanning, but it's clear the straw man is the only argument you can take down. The reason you are completely wrong and a toxic member of your team is that your logic can be used to justify all kinds of terrible, short term wins that sacrifice any kind of long term/sustainable design. You'd rather make a bad technology play so your boss gets off your back, than think through your decision and make a long term investment into a sustainable, maintainable, improvable, and agile technology that's actually suited to solve the real problem you have. OF COURSE you're there to accomplish the tasks your business needs to succeed. That's a given. What's not a given is that you need to slap together the shittiest piece of software that'll do that job right then and there. Your attitude is what keeps companies from solving problems, and forces them to pay dollar after dollar to fix the same issue over and over again. You're selfish, you're greedy, and you cost your company insane amounts of money. You should not be employed in this industry if what you wrote here is how you think, period.
- aldoushuxley001 7y agoYou gotta relax your tone eh. Not sure why you’re so personally/emotionally invested in this topic but your aggressive tone makes your myriad comments grating.
- dimino 7y agoThis isn't an aggressive tone, except to people who have their own emotional investment into the topic. I put out what is given.
- dang 7y agoWould you please stop posting flamewar comments and crossing into personal attack? This breaks the site guidelines and is not ok here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dimino 7y agoI'm not doing anything like that, but please, pretend that I am, seems like your go-to move here anyway.
- dang 7y agoWe cut you much more slack than we give to most accounts who break the site guidelines, so I'm not really feeling your complaints. Would you please pick one account to post with? Using multiple accounts to work around moderation restrictions is obviously abusive.
- dimino 7y agoYou know moderation is at an IP level, we've had multiple discussions about it, and I'm clearly still getting hit with the rate limit, so when you say "to work around restrictions" it's obviously disingenuous on your part. Someone/multiple people are auto-downvoting everything I comment on with my other account, so I switched to see if it kept happening. Unsurprisingly, it didn't until I mentioned it again, and it started up immediately after. As for the other comment you made (can't reply directly, rate limit), it isn't a low information post, I'm showing a screenshot of the message I get when I hit the rate limit. You're literally gas lighting right now, it's insane. You also know if you actually do anything else beyond rate limiting I'll just go dark, which is even "worse" for you, so this so-called "leniency" is nonsense. Just stop. Edit: You can't use multiple accounts to get around rate limits, as you and I have discussed multiple times, so I'm not "doing" anything that constitutes a ban, but feel free to ban at your leisure. Over the years you've established yourself firmly as an unreasonable person, so there's no point trying to treat you like one.