3 ms·

Both this and the other post trending on HN right now about boring technology show yet again that the Internet is a place for polarising views and clickbait tit

Both this and the other post trending on HN right now about boring technology show yet again that the Internet is a place for polarising views and clickbait titles rather than sensible discussion. Choose the right tech for the job. Let's move on.

methyl 6y ago
This is exactly what I intended to do when publishing this article: provoke sensible discussion. I think it's valuable to talk about polarizing views. Often agreement solely depends on the context you are in and it's useful to get familiar with different contexts.
xwdv 6y ago
The bridge between polarizing views is in the comments. Comments are the last bastion of honest discussion, and it’s why people don’t bother reading articles. A good article is one that spawns good comments, and sometimes all you need is a good headline to spur the discussion. That’s why we have these kind of titles.
ookdatnog 6y ago
I'm not really sure why you think these articles are not contributing to sensible discussion. Both articles provide arguments for their case, neither seem dogmatic about it. In contrast, your comment offers no arguments, you merely dismiss the debate as uninteresting, while simultaneously misunderstanding what these authors are talking about: you claim one should simply "choose the right tech for the job", as if there is always an obvious right choice. But it seems pretty clear to me that both authors agree that this is in fact often a hard choice. And both articles are about such situations: what to do if the choice between multiple technologies is hard. In reality, you can almost never really evaluate all the alternatives, so you need some sort of "reasoned bias", a heuristic that helps you decide between candidates. "Choose boring technology" and "choose exciting technology" are both suggestions for such heuristics.
satyrnein 6y ago
Has anyone ever argued against using the right tool for the job? That advice is unfortunately not very actionable. The whole discussion is about which tool is right for which job.

methyl 6y ago

This is exactly what I intended to do when publishing this article: provoke sensible discussion. I think it's valuable to talk about polarizing views. Often agreement solely depends on the context you are in and it's useful to get familiar with different contexts.

xwdv 6y ago

The bridge between polarizing views is in the comments. Comments are the last bastion of honest discussion, and it’s why people don’t bother reading articles. A good article is one that spawns good comments, and sometimes all you need is a good headline to spur the discussion. That’s why we have these kind of titles.

ookdatnog 6y ago

I'm not really sure why you think these articles are not contributing to sensible discussion. Both articles provide arguments for their case, neither seem dogmatic about it. In contrast, your comment offers no arguments, you merely dismiss the debate as uninteresting, while simultaneously misunderstanding what these authors are talking about: you claim one should simply "choose the right tech for the job", as if there is always an obvious right choice. But it seems pretty clear to me that both authors agree that this is in fact often a hard choice. And both articles are about such situations: what to do if the choice between multiple technologies is hard. In reality, you can almost never really evaluate all the alternatives, so you need some sort of "reasoned bias", a heuristic that helps you decide between candidates. "Choose boring technology" and "choose exciting technology" are both suggestions for such heuristics.

satyrnein 6y ago

Has anyone ever argued against using the right tool for the job? That advice is unfortunately not very actionable. The whole discussion is about which tool is right for which job.