14 ms·
I agree. But I have seen many programmers claim they will be more productive in language/framework X because its new. As for cheap shots at PHP, I see PHP like
by boyter 14y ago
I agree. But I have seen many programmers claim they will be more productive in language/framework X because its new.
As for cheap shots at PHP, I see PHP like the USA. Easy to take cheap shots at because its so large and runs so much. For all its faults/flaws its still pretty productive though.
I am an Aussie for the record.
- dragonwriter 14y ago> I agree. But I have seen many programmers claim they will be more productive in language/framework X because its new. I've never seen that. I've seen many programmers claim that they will be more productive in new language/framework X because it includes a combination of features A, B, and C that aren't found together in other languages/framewors, but never simply because the language/framework is new. The closest I've seen to the "because its new" thing is "because it doesn't have the accumulated cruft of framework Z", but while that may be related to newness, its still about features, rather than newness alone.
- boyter 14y agoSorry that's actually what I meant. "I will be more productive with X because it has Y feature". They still tend to underestimate though. Don't get me wrong, i'm all for new technology but bleeding edge on new projects can be a recipe for failure most of the time.
- dragonwriter 14y ago> Don't get me wrong, i'm all for new technology but bleeding edge on new projects can be a recipe for failure most of the time. That's a fairly good reason for bleeding edge to be used as one track of a dual- (or multi-) track project which includes a short-turn-around, low-risk, low-reward track and one (or more) higher-risk, high-reward, longer-turnaround track. This is equally true regardless of whether the project is "new".