2 ms·

I understand your point, but a minor retort: You get the same sort of "gotchas", historical choices, baggage, etc from new-ish code that does "too-much" and can

by zo1 7y ago

I understand your point, but a minor retort: You get the same sort of "gotchas", historical choices, baggage, etc from new-ish code that does "too-much" and can be considered black-box "magic" without delving into it, reading docs, tutorials, and having sometimes just plain having experience in it. I think a potential overarching point that started this thread: Tech should evolve, but it should also stay steady and simple to use. Too much of the "new" stuff is not just a good natural evolution of people solving problems, it's people adding layers of complexity and fluff where there need be none.

breeny592 7y ago
> Too much of the "new" stuff is not just a good natural evolution of people solving problems I guess it depends on what you're lumping in with "new stuff". I've experience the opposite quite a lot of refusal to acknowledge that a new constraint or condition has modified the parameters of what a solution is trying to solve, dismissed as one off events or something to monitor, then 6 months later when the problem was isolated becoming the new norm, and monkey patches being required because of refusal to acknowledge that the environment has become more complex.