3 ms·

I find the loud aversion for peoples choice of tools quite "eye roll"-worthy. IMHO use whatever that helps you actually deliver something.

coldtea 6y ago
IYHO there's no possibility of people: (a) using the wrong tool for the job (b) succumbing to fads and hype (c) forcing said tools to other's throats (e.g. manager making decisions, or team lead, or company policy, or "opinionated" non-technical customer) ? I'd say those cases deserve "loud aversion for peoples choice of tools".
- pdpi 6y ago
  None of those is justified, no. Where you see me using the wrong tool for the job, I see myself using a tool that may be flawed but is good enough for what I need right now. Where you see me succumbing to fads and hype, I see you as needlessly conservative, or see myself as trialling a new piece of tech. Where you see me forcing a tool down your throat, I see myself standardising on a compromise solution so we don't have ten approaches to the same problem in one single codebase. On any one of those situations, either of us might be right, wrong, or (most likely) somewhere in between. It's important to keep that in mind before loudly denouncing others' opinions, especially when the alternative is to just argue for your own opinion and letting me decide.
  - pydry 6y ago
    Where I loudly denounce something it's usually because it is supported by a wave of hype that will drown out muted objections. I can count 11 or 12 instances of this happening in tech. There's a reason Larry Ellison said the only industry more fashion driven than women's fashion is tech. Tech is extremely herdlike. If you are going against the herd you kind of have to be loud to get heard. Large corporations with marketing budgets and the people who got caught up in them will drown you out otherwise. Loud objections can cut through the bullshit-with-a-big-marketing-budget and in many cases (e.g. mongo) I'm pretty glad it did.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Where you see me using the wrong tool for the job, I see myself using a tool that may be flawed but is good enough for what I need right now. Sure, but one might also be delluded, and the tool they use be not just "flawed but good enough", but not even "good enough" for what they actually need, if not actively detrimental to their use case. >Where you see me succumbing to fads and hype, I see you as needlessly conservative, or see myself as trialling a new piece of tech. Sure, but that might more often than no be delluded, and be indeed "succumbing to fads and hype", and "trialling a new piece of tech" for no good business or technical reason other than that. So, "none of those is justified" is premised on some misunderstanding from the part of those doing the critique, which is not always (or even often) the case.
    - pdpi 6y ago
      Like I said — in any one given situation you might be right and I might be wrong, or vice versa. Disagreement is healthy. My point is just that it's the "loud aversion for peoples choice of tools" bit that is not healthy.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  These cases do exist. These cases are the small minority of cases where other tech folks are yelling at them for doing it wrong. If the tech community cannot distinguish between helpful and harmful advice, it is better to keep quiet. You can find "X sucks" blog posts for virtually any X in software development. Languages, language paradigms, testing procedures, development lifecycles, hiring practices, management and org structures, support styles, oss licenses. Everything. Most of these hot takes are not helpful.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >You can find "X sucks" blog posts for virtually any X in software development. Languages, language paradigms, testing procedures, development lifecycles, hiring practices, management and org structures, support styles, oss licenses. Yes, and they're all pretty accurate.
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      But you can also find "~X sucks". They can't both be right.
      - coldtea 6y ago
        You'd be surprised!

coldtea 6y ago

IYHO there's no possibility of people: (a) using the wrong tool for the job (b) succumbing to fads and hype (c) forcing said tools to other's throats (e.g. manager making decisions, or team lead, or company policy, or "opinionated" non-technical customer) ? I'd say those cases deserve "loud aversion for peoples choice of tools".

pdpi 6y ago
None of those is justified, no. Where you see me using the wrong tool for the job, I see myself using a tool that may be flawed but is good enough for what I need right now. Where you see me succumbing to fads and hype, I see you as needlessly conservative, or see myself as trialling a new piece of tech. Where you see me forcing a tool down your throat, I see myself standardising on a compromise solution so we don't have ten approaches to the same problem in one single codebase. On any one of those situations, either of us might be right, wrong, or (most likely) somewhere in between. It's important to keep that in mind before loudly denouncing others' opinions, especially when the alternative is to just argue for your own opinion and letting me decide.
- pydry 6y ago
  Where I loudly denounce something it's usually because it is supported by a wave of hype that will drown out muted objections. I can count 11 or 12 instances of this happening in tech. There's a reason Larry Ellison said the only industry more fashion driven than women's fashion is tech. Tech is extremely herdlike. If you are going against the herd you kind of have to be loud to get heard. Large corporations with marketing budgets and the people who got caught up in them will drown you out otherwise. Loud objections can cut through the bullshit-with-a-big-marketing-budget and in many cases (e.g. mongo) I'm pretty glad it did.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Where you see me using the wrong tool for the job, I see myself using a tool that may be flawed but is good enough for what I need right now. Sure, but one might also be delluded, and the tool they use be not just "flawed but good enough", but not even "good enough" for what they actually need, if not actively detrimental to their use case. >Where you see me succumbing to fads and hype, I see you as needlessly conservative, or see myself as trialling a new piece of tech. Sure, but that might more often than no be delluded, and be indeed "succumbing to fads and hype", and "trialling a new piece of tech" for no good business or technical reason other than that. So, "none of those is justified" is premised on some misunderstanding from the part of those doing the critique, which is not always (or even often) the case.
  - pdpi 6y ago
    Like I said — in any one given situation you might be right and I might be wrong, or vice versa. Disagreement is healthy. My point is just that it's the "loud aversion for peoples choice of tools" bit that is not healthy.
UncleMeat 6y ago
These cases do exist. These cases are the small minority of cases where other tech folks are yelling at them for doing it wrong. If the tech community cannot distinguish between helpful and harmful advice, it is better to keep quiet. You can find "X sucks" blog posts for virtually any X in software development. Languages, language paradigms, testing procedures, development lifecycles, hiring practices, management and org structures, support styles, oss licenses. Everything. Most of these hot takes are not helpful.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >You can find "X sucks" blog posts for virtually any X in software development. Languages, language paradigms, testing procedures, development lifecycles, hiring practices, management and org structures, support styles, oss licenses. Yes, and they're all pretty accurate.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    But you can also find "~X sucks". They can't both be right.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      You'd be surprised!