3 ms·

This is a deeply nihilistic article. The pinnacle of software development is definitely not simple languages and boring technologies. Have we given up?

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
Can you elaborate what exactly we‘re giving up when choosing „simple languages and boring technologies“?
- cobertos 3y ago
  The ability to be more expressive, niche, and precise. As an analogy, it would be like removing the "big words" from the English language because they are not well understood, but then losing the specificity and expressiveness of having them in the first place.
  - mobiuscog 3y ago
    "big words" are fine, so long as you are using the words that your audience understands. You need to speak to your audience. You could always use those words, and explain the definition/meaning as a side-note, which would be more inclusive without losing the expressiveness. It's often through explaining the need for a big word, that people realise there are smaller, better known words, that work just as well - they just don't look as 'clever'.
  - grncdr 3y ago
    Removing the big words from English is encouraged in most business communication. I think both losses are a shame, but they are conscious decisions made by people optimizing for certain outcomes. Another choice quote from the fine article: > One largely unappreciated aspect of Scrum is the interchangeable nature of team members.
  - MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
    In software there is no fixed common language (like english) that, with varying competence, is spoken among all participants, but the opposite: many languages, frameworks and technologies, some of which will not see the next decade. In such an environment, it seems prudent to avoid sunk costs of short-lived technologies, and instead try to reduce complexity as much as possible. I understand that this is not always satisfying, and that one wishes it was different. There is joy in elaborate expressions of language.
    - cobertos 3y ago
      But English is not fixed, at the domain-specific level. Domain-specific words are created, used, and forgotten all the time. This is to the benefit of communication/problem-solving and detriment to outsiders, juniors, longevity etc. (if the concept doesn't "stick") Mathematics, finance, material science, etc. all have concepts and words in that conceptual space to define ways to solve and talk about problems. To pick one up and build upon it but have it be forgotten/not-understood has the same risk/reward as potentially choosing a short-lived technology. Sometimes choosing something complex is worth the risk, sometimes it's not.
- mrkeen 3y ago
  It's a non-starter because people disagree on "simple".
Krssst 3y ago
It depends on the requirements. Does CRUD software require the pinnacle of software development? Energy/"talent" would be better spent elsewhere. (don't mean "talent" as derogatory but everyone has its own definition so it's a bit unclear)

MrBuddyCasino 3y ago

Can you elaborate what exactly we‘re giving up when choosing „simple languages and boring technologies“?

cobertos 3y ago
The ability to be more expressive, niche, and precise. As an analogy, it would be like removing the "big words" from the English language because they are not well understood, but then losing the specificity and expressiveness of having them in the first place.
- mobiuscog 3y ago
  "big words" are fine, so long as you are using the words that your audience understands. You need to speak to your audience. You could always use those words, and explain the definition/meaning as a side-note, which would be more inclusive without losing the expressiveness. It's often through explaining the need for a big word, that people realise there are smaller, better known words, that work just as well - they just don't look as 'clever'.
- grncdr 3y ago
  Removing the big words from English is encouraged in most business communication. I think both losses are a shame, but they are conscious decisions made by people optimizing for certain outcomes. Another choice quote from the fine article: > One largely unappreciated aspect of Scrum is the interchangeable nature of team members.
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  In software there is no fixed common language (like english) that, with varying competence, is spoken among all participants, but the opposite: many languages, frameworks and technologies, some of which will not see the next decade. In such an environment, it seems prudent to avoid sunk costs of short-lived technologies, and instead try to reduce complexity as much as possible. I understand that this is not always satisfying, and that one wishes it was different. There is joy in elaborate expressions of language.
  - cobertos 3y ago
    But English is not fixed, at the domain-specific level. Domain-specific words are created, used, and forgotten all the time. This is to the benefit of communication/problem-solving and detriment to outsiders, juniors, longevity etc. (if the concept doesn't "stick") Mathematics, finance, material science, etc. all have concepts and words in that conceptual space to define ways to solve and talk about problems. To pick one up and build upon it but have it be forgotten/not-understood has the same risk/reward as potentially choosing a short-lived technology. Sometimes choosing something complex is worth the risk, sometimes it's not.
mrkeen 3y ago
It's a non-starter because people disagree on "simple".

Krssst 3y ago

It depends on the requirements. Does CRUD software require the pinnacle of software development? Energy/"talent" would be better spent elsewhere. (don't mean "talent" as derogatory but everyone has its own definition so it's a bit unclear)