5 ms·

I'm completely on the same page with you on that one. I understand though the marketing needs. IT has this steady influx of beginners that don't have the insig

I'm completely on the same page with you on that one. I understand though the marketing needs. IT has this steady influx of beginners that don't have the insight yet. Since there are so many of them, at any given time, it's reasonable (or maybe it actually works) to use standard advertising techniques at them. "Secret sauce", "The missing puzzle piece", "10 things that make you a better dev", "Dev done correctly". Developers are kind of a dream target group: lots of disposable income, technically adept (i.e. at the cost of social skills), excited to experience a latest unicorn. I'm seeing this whole "hype cycle" thing as a competition among more senior, adept in marketing, developers. Since there is such a high demand, the supply is also rich.

jka 6y ago
Could/should there be a 'wikipedia for software development practices'?
- steve-s 6y ago
  What about https://wiki.c2.com https://wiki.c2.com
  - jka 6y ago
    Something along exactly those same kind of lines of intent, yep. A wiki-like reference guide that can assist architectural and technology selection recommendations. Potentially with support for argument mapping[1] and decision trees[2] to deal with contentious or context-sensitive topics. [1] - https://en.arguman.org/ https://en.arguman.org/ [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree
  - slim 6y ago
    it's been read only since ~forever
- pm90 6y ago
  Genuine question: whats wrong with wikipedia itself?
  - brian_cloutier 6y ago
    I have often wondered this. For some reason, important information isn't making it there. There's no page for Chain Replication. Maybe nobody has tried to add it? Chain Replication has been around for so long that it seems unlikely nobody would have tried to add it. Wikipedia also seems to fall apart at the seams. It's great at giving you the answer to questions for which there is an unambiguous answer, but it doesn't do a good job of answering all the other questions you might have. Why is Prolog not very popular, what seems to be holding it back? Any answer to this is mostly speculation, something which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

jka 6y ago

Could/should there be a 'wikipedia for software development practices'?

steve-s 6y ago
What about https://wiki.c2.com https://wiki.c2.com
- jka 6y ago
  Something along exactly those same kind of lines of intent, yep. A wiki-like reference guide that can assist architectural and technology selection recommendations. Potentially with support for argument mapping[1] and decision trees[2] to deal with contentious or context-sensitive topics. [1] - https://en.arguman.org/ https://en.arguman.org/ [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree
- slim 6y ago
  it's been read only since ~forever
pm90 6y ago
Genuine question: whats wrong with wikipedia itself?
- brian_cloutier 6y ago
  I have often wondered this. For some reason, important information isn't making it there. There's no page for Chain Replication. Maybe nobody has tried to add it? Chain Replication has been around for so long that it seems unlikely nobody would have tried to add it. Wikipedia also seems to fall apart at the seams. It's great at giving you the answer to questions for which there is an unambiguous answer, but it doesn't do a good job of answering all the other questions you might have. Why is Prolog not very popular, what seems to be holding it back? Any answer to this is mostly speculation, something which is not allowed on Wikipedia.