2 ms·
> set of opinions about stack The stack doesn't exist today. It could have if we didn't jump so quickly to new technology and all these different prog language
by foffoofof 3y ago
> set of opinions about stack
The stack doesn't exist today. It could have if we didn't jump so quickly to new technology and all these different prog languages.
I've just never heard someone pitch new tech with: "easy to debug and change". It's always: look at this contrived example with some new esoteric feature.
- lemmsjid 3y agoI get your cynicism because I've made the same complaint. But I wouldn't universalize it, because I think it's more of a marketing and context issue than an issue fundamental to the whole ecosystem. Startups often prioritize time-to-market for what is effectively a prototype. Startups get a lot of hype. Therefore, frameworks that focus on time to market over refactoring / debugging get a lot of hype. Sometimes those frameworks actually internally put a lot of effort into refactoring / debugging, but when it comes to marketing themselves, they don't. But some frameworks are marketed more towards mature or large organizations, and they certainly do emphasize refactoring / debugging. The JVM and .NET runtimes are big examples here. Their debugging and operational monitoring capabilities are several classes above most of the competition, and their primary and tool-vendor ecosystems continually push further debugging capabilities as features.
- foffoofof 3y ago> JVM and .NET runtime Maybe I'm too caught up in startup-land, as I haven't touched these tools in a long time. The debugging tools and IDE support on these platforms have always been great. The Visual Studio install time, the huge frameworks, slow start time, bad package managers, were such killers for productivity.