4 ms·

> "use popular tech because it's popular" ...is not what the article is saying. It's saying that you should use boring tech when it is sufficient to get the jo

by pdonis 3y ago

> "use popular tech because it's popular" ...is not what the article is saying. It's saying that you should use boring tech when it is sufficient to get the job done that you need done. "Boring" is not the same as "popular"; indeed, "popular" is often skewed by hype about the latest shiny new toy. "Boring", as it is used in the article, just means "does job X and is proven by much experience to work for that purpose". > I'm not saying that a team should use different technologies for the sake of using different technologies And this is the same point the article is making. The article is saying you should only use different technologies to the extent that you have to to get the job done that you need to get done.

tikhonj 3y ago
"Boring" inevitably means "popular" in these discussions—"popular" in the sense of "mainstream" and "widely used" rather than "trendy" or "hyped", but it's still a popularity contest at the end of the day.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > "Boring" inevitably means "popular" in these discussions Not the way the article is using the term "boring", or the way the post I responded to was using the term "popular". "Boring" means choosing the tech on the basis of it being proven to work by much experence. That is what the article is advocating doing unless the boring tech simply won't do the job you need it to do. The "boring" tech might well also be popular, but that is irrelevant to what the article is saying because the tech is not being chosen for its popularity, it's being chosen for its technical capability. "Popular" means choosing the tech on the basis of its popularity. That means not even looking at whether the tool meets technical requirements. That is what the post I responded to was describing, and arguing against. But the article is not advocating for doing this, so arguing against it is not arguing against the article at all. > it's still a popularity contest at the end of the day. Not if the criterion is technical merit. See above.
- jf22 3y ago
  I have never encountered a scenario where "boring" meant "popular".
- ska 3y ago
  > "Boring" inevitably means "popular" in these discussions No it really doesn't. In this context it means something more like: we know this approach has been successfully shipped hundreds of times for similar use cases. There may be warts, but they are known, and it will work.
BlackFly 3y ago
The person you responded to is using a different definition of popular than you are. Popular: 1. Widely liked or appreciated. 3. Of, representing, or carried on by the people at large. In the phrase, "use popular tech because it is popular" you should think of the latter definition: carried on by the people at large. Hence the comparison to "Nobody got fired for choosing IBM." Instead some people decide to call this "boring" technology and you have a movement of people trying to make boring choices glamorous that the person you are responding to is lamenting. The article is saying to use popular technology (definition 3 above) because of the implications of "at large". Pragmatically, the folklore isn't helpful. Choosing boring technology and then building an ad hoc layer on top of it compared to using a cutting edge off the shelf solution for the problem at hand shouldn't be an easy decision based on engineering folklore. The difficulty is often in seeing that your actual problem is well adapted (never perfectly) to a particular novel technical choice and compounding that is the difficulty of knowing about the novel technology and what problem it is actually adapted to solving. Hence the need for technical vision and understanding of the problem.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > The person you responded to is using a different definition of popular than you are. No, he's conflating "popular" as he uses the term with "boring" as the article uses that term, which, as I explained, is not valid. As the GP uses "popular", I agree that tech should not be chosen because it is "popular"; see my response to tikhonj's follow-up post. But as I noted in that response, the article is not arguing for choosing tech because it is "popular" in that sense. > The article is saying to use popular technology (definition 3 above) because of the implications of "at large". No, the article is saying that you should not even care whether tech is "popular" in any of your senses; you should choose tech based on whether it does the job that you need done based on much prior experience. I.e., based on technical criteria, not popularity (in any sense). The article does imply that tech that does the job you need done based on much prior experience will be "popular" in your sense 3, but that does not mean it is telling you to choose the tech based on popularity.

by pdonis 3y ago

tikhonj 3y ago

"Boring" inevitably means "popular" in these discussions—"popular" in the sense of "mainstream" and "widely used" rather than "trendy" or "hyped", but it's still a popularity contest at the end of the day.

pdonis 3y ago
> "Boring" inevitably means "popular" in these discussions Not the way the article is using the term "boring", or the way the post I responded to was using the term "popular". "Boring" means choosing the tech on the basis of it being proven to work by much experence. That is what the article is advocating doing unless the boring tech simply won't do the job you need it to do. The "boring" tech might well also be popular, but that is irrelevant to what the article is saying because the tech is not being chosen for its popularity, it's being chosen for its technical capability. "Popular" means choosing the tech on the basis of its popularity. That means not even looking at whether the tool meets technical requirements. That is what the post I responded to was describing, and arguing against. But the article is not advocating for doing this, so arguing against it is not arguing against the article at all. > it's still a popularity contest at the end of the day. Not if the criterion is technical merit. See above.
jf22 3y ago
I have never encountered a scenario where "boring" meant "popular".
ska 3y ago
> "Boring" inevitably means "popular" in these discussions No it really doesn't. In this context it means something more like: we know this approach has been successfully shipped hundreds of times for similar use cases. There may be warts, but they are known, and it will work.

BlackFly 3y ago

The person you responded to is using a different definition of popular than you are. Popular: 1. Widely liked or appreciated. 3. Of, representing, or carried on by the people at large. In the phrase, "use popular tech because it is popular" you should think of the latter definition: carried on by the people at large. Hence the comparison to "Nobody got fired for choosing IBM." Instead some people decide to call this "boring" technology and you have a movement of people trying to make boring choices glamorous that the person you are responding to is lamenting. The article is saying to use popular technology (definition 3 above) because of the implications of "at large". Pragmatically, the folklore isn't helpful. Choosing boring technology and then building an ad hoc layer on top of it compared to using a cutting edge off the shelf solution for the problem at hand shouldn't be an easy decision based on engineering folklore. The difficulty is often in seeing that your actual problem is well adapted (never perfectly) to a particular novel technical choice and compounding that is the difficulty of knowing about the novel technology and what problem it is actually adapted to solving. Hence the need for technical vision and understanding of the problem.

pdonis 3y ago
> The person you responded to is using a different definition of popular than you are. No, he's conflating "popular" as he uses the term with "boring" as the article uses that term, which, as I explained, is not valid. As the GP uses "popular", I agree that tech should not be chosen because it is "popular"; see my response to tikhonj's follow-up post. But as I noted in that response, the article is not arguing for choosing tech because it is "popular" in that sense. > The article is saying to use popular technology (definition 3 above) because of the implications of "at large". No, the article is saying that you should not even care whether tech is "popular" in any of your senses; you should choose tech based on whether it does the job that you need done based on much prior experience. I.e., based on technical criteria, not popularity (in any sense). The article does imply that tech that does the job you need done based on much prior experience will be "popular" in your sense 3, but that does not mean it is telling you to choose the tech based on popularity.