4 ms·

The problem with your model is that it relies on there being “proven” technologies to begin with, but who is going to prove them if not those very groups you de

The problem with your model is that it relies on there being “proven” technologies to begin with, but who is going to prove them if not those very groups you deride? You’re proving the necessity of the early adopters and hype suckers if anything.

KronisLV 3y ago
Couldn't one make the point that those early adopters in orgs that can afford to take on the risks pave the way for everyone else? And eventually, once some technologies survive and others die off for a variety of reasons, people with deadlines to meet (more limited amount of time and resources to invest in getting something working) can just build off of the success of others?
coldtea 3y ago
>The problem with your model is that it relies on there being “proven” technologies to begin with This takes overthinking to a new level. Of course there are proven technologies - used with success for decades, known for their stability, etc. I'm pretty sure one can find arguments against any of them. But we do have a general (not unanimous) consensus, even if it hasn't been cast into stone. For example that Python is tried and mature for data science, or that C++ has proven itself in games, and Java in enterprise and application server programming, and so on. >but who is going to prove them if not those very groups you deride Actual domain experience from millions of developers, and observation of decade(s) of use, stability, and known upsides/downsides? Nobody waited for hipster programmers to declare mature technologies. Their "job" is to hype new stuff. If it evolves into something mature, they go to the next shiny thing.
- ironmagma 3y ago
  The dividing line between hipster programmers and “engineers” is nonexistent. They are just other programmers. Those millions of developers didn’t hop on the bandwagon just because Java was sitting there, it required a lot of forward-thinking, high-skill people to get off the ground. And they were hipsters at the time.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >The dividing line between hipster programmers and “engineers” is nonexistent. The dividing line between baldness and having your hair is also nonexistent, and yet both states exist and one can tell them apart if they see them. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ >Those millions of developers didn’t hop on the bandwagon just because Java was sitting there, it required a lot of forward-thinking, high-skill people to get off the ground. And they were hipsters at the time. Nah, I was there "at the time", and this is bad example. Java got traction because of marketing to corporate departments, not because of "forward-thinking, high-skill people" driving it. It was literally the first language that came with a full blown, tens-of-millions, commercial hype campaign. In any case, the early adopters were neither "hipsters" nor more mature "engineer" types. It was the duped-by-hipsters types, but at that time enticed by marketing. The kind of hipsters described above and in abundance 2023 (or even 2010) sense hardly existed back then (Java caught on during 1997-2000), and even when, very rarely, they did, they didn't have the means and captive audience to make their hype be adopted (people hyped things like Ada, Smalltalk, Lisp, Eiffel, and other lost causes). Back then it was mostly marketing driven hype, sold to corporate decision makers. Modern hipster devs came about with blogs, social media, the proliferation of conferences, the rise of startups as we know them today when they recovered after the dot-com boom, and companies like Google and Facebook fighting it out for developer influence.
    - ironmagma 3y ago
      And coincidentally it makes no sense to deride people who have no hair because it doesn’t indicate a moral or technical failing.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        Not sure how this applies as a suggestion, as nobody derided them here.
        ironmagma 3y ago
        > "Newest technologies" are for early adopters and hype suckers. This definitely doesn't come off as "positive and a negative". By grouping them together (and casting them as an "other") you are devaluing them.

KronisLV 3y ago

Couldn't one make the point that those early adopters in orgs that can afford to take on the risks pave the way for everyone else? And eventually, once some technologies survive and others die off for a variety of reasons, people with deadlines to meet (more limited amount of time and resources to invest in getting something working) can just build off of the success of others?

coldtea 3y ago

>The problem with your model is that it relies on there being “proven” technologies to begin with This takes overthinking to a new level. Of course there are proven technologies - used with success for decades, known for their stability, etc. I'm pretty sure one can find arguments against any of them. But we do have a general (not unanimous) consensus, even if it hasn't been cast into stone. For example that Python is tried and mature for data science, or that C++ has proven itself in games, and Java in enterprise and application server programming, and so on. >but who is going to prove them if not those very groups you deride Actual domain experience from millions of developers, and observation of decade(s) of use, stability, and known upsides/downsides? Nobody waited for hipster programmers to declare mature technologies. Their "job" is to hype new stuff. If it evolves into something mature, they go to the next shiny thing.

ironmagma 3y ago
The dividing line between hipster programmers and “engineers” is nonexistent. They are just other programmers. Those millions of developers didn’t hop on the bandwagon just because Java was sitting there, it required a lot of forward-thinking, high-skill people to get off the ground. And they were hipsters at the time.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >The dividing line between hipster programmers and “engineers” is nonexistent. The dividing line between baldness and having your hair is also nonexistent, and yet both states exist and one can tell them apart if they see them. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ >Those millions of developers didn’t hop on the bandwagon just because Java was sitting there, it required a lot of forward-thinking, high-skill people to get off the ground. And they were hipsters at the time. Nah, I was there "at the time", and this is bad example. Java got traction because of marketing to corporate departments, not because of "forward-thinking, high-skill people" driving it. It was literally the first language that came with a full blown, tens-of-millions, commercial hype campaign. In any case, the early adopters were neither "hipsters" nor more mature "engineer" types. It was the duped-by-hipsters types, but at that time enticed by marketing. The kind of hipsters described above and in abundance 2023 (or even 2010) sense hardly existed back then (Java caught on during 1997-2000), and even when, very rarely, they did, they didn't have the means and captive audience to make their hype be adopted (people hyped things like Ada, Smalltalk, Lisp, Eiffel, and other lost causes). Back then it was mostly marketing driven hype, sold to corporate decision makers. Modern hipster devs came about with blogs, social media, the proliferation of conferences, the rise of startups as we know them today when they recovered after the dot-com boom, and companies like Google and Facebook fighting it out for developer influence.
  - ironmagma 3y ago
    And coincidentally it makes no sense to deride people who have no hair because it doesn’t indicate a moral or technical failing.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      Not sure how this applies as a suggestion, as nobody derided them here.
      - ironmagma 3y ago
        > "Newest technologies" are for early adopters and hype suckers. This definitely doesn't come off as "positive and a negative". By grouping them together (and casting them as an "other") you are devaluing them.