4 ms·
Of all the adjectives to use, why “modern”? Very common these days. I don’t get it.
by tomwphillips 2y ago
Of all the adjectives to use, why “modern”?
Very common these days. I don’t get it.
- RadiozRadioz 2y agoMaybe it's a synonym for "Rust/Go instead of C/C++"
- toastercat 2y agoSame, except I take issue with the word "tool." Like a program? A library? A screwdriver? Very ambiguous. Very common these days as well. I don't get it.
- looperhacks 2y agoIt's explicitly called a "cli tool", not very ambiguous imo
- toastercat 2y agoNot quite. Could be Call Level Interface, Command Line Interface, Common Language Infrastructure, or Clintonville Municipal Airport which has the airport code of "CLI".
- superb_dev 2y agoAt this point you’re being intentionally obtuse. “CLI tool” is pretty non-ambiguous given the context
- bityard 2y agoI've noticed it's something a lot of Rust programs describe themselves as. Implying that software written in other programming languages is somehow vintage or obsolete, I guess.
- whateveracct 2y agoRust has a very pronounced hype/ marketing/PR culture.
- oopsallmagic 2y ago[flagged]
- mattrighetti 2y agoQuite the contrary, I think that env variables have been in this state for this long because they just works and I'm all in with the say "don't reinvent the wheel". I just used modern because it's a tool made in 2023-2024 with Rust, but yeah others may be right that it's just meaningless. I'll probably remove it.
- peter_l_downs 2y agoI think a lot of new entrants to previously-well-explored spaces tend to label themselves as "modern" in order to signify that there is something new about their approach. For instance, I have a migrations library that I descibre as "modern" because it is designed for a continuous deployment environment where you're automatically running migrations on container startup — there are tons of existing popular migrations libraries, but none of them work this way because they were written in the era that you'd manually run sql commands in prod. I say "modern" so that if anyone finds my library, they realize that it was created recently based on more recent dev/ops trends. Maybe I should drop the "modern"? I do see a lot of people describe their code as "minimal" or "clean", which is pretty meaningless to me, so I get that "modern" could come across that way as well.
- skeledrew 2y agoAnother issue with using such relative qualifiers IMO is that they become meaningless over time, as the namespace becomes polluted as every few years something addressing some problem with a potentially different approach is given a similar qualifier.
- tomwphillips 2y agoInteresting. My take is more negative than that: modern indicates they are unaware of prior art and the key challenges in the particular space, and consequently the software is buggy and/or fundamentally broken its approach. I think you should drop “modern” for something like “designed for CI”, “CI-first” or “CI-native”. It’s more informative.
- Aeolun 2y agoMaybe? I think, everything else being equal, that “modern” is still a relatively positive signal to me.
- rpigab 2y agoRipgrep is recent and written in Rust, but it does not describe itself as modern, even if some apects of it are. Its interface is designed to be an almost drop-in replacement of grep, which makes it "old style". I think software can be old style, modern, or neutral. Most software written today aims for modern, it seems logical.
- Aeolun 2y agoRipgrep is definitely much more usable than legacy grep though.
- oopsallmagic 2y ago[dead]