5 ms·

3 innovation tokens? The supply is fixed for a long while? People on HackerNews of all places buying that? It's plain wrong. Innovation is good for any kind of

by tie_ 12y ago

3 innovation tokens? The supply is fixed for a long while? People on HackerNews of all places buying that? It's plain wrong. Innovation is good for any kind of organization, if done properly. What the author should focus on is the lack of agility that prevents companies from experimenting and failing quickly. It's not the innovative technology that gets you in the end, it's your inability to evaluate/adopt/discard fast. Granted, that ability is hard to find in large-ish organizations, but to willingly limit your innovation sounds like a recipe for a slow death. It's like a gentleman boxer from the 19th century limiting himself to just jab, cross, hook entering a modern MMA fight.

SwellJoe 12y ago
So, call them "agility tokens". You've still got a limited supply when it comes to trying out new languages, new databases, new whatever. If you've got ten years Python and MySQL experience, and 95% of your codebase is in Python with data stored in MySQL, what do you gain and what do you lose by introducing Node.js and MongoDB into the mix? Sometimes it's worth the trade...other times it's not. But, Node.js and MongoDB is probably not going to provide enough of a productivity boost to make up for the costs of maintaining two codebases, two build/test/deploy environments, two databases, etc. You're making a trade; sometimes it's beneficial (usually long term), and often it's not (usually short term). In short, yes, I'm buying this. I think it's a perfectly sensible analogy; a somewhat leaky abstraction, if you will, since none of us actually have any "tokens" that we are trading in for a new database. But, the meaning is clear to me, and I can't find fault in it.
- tie_ 12y ago
  > Sometimes it's worth the trade...other times it's not. That's exactly what the article disputes - "It's not worth the trade if you had 3 of those already". Sure, you could drown in meaningless (for your project) new technologies, and this is a risk you should be aware of. If that's the meaning of the article that you are referring to, I agree it is sane (and also wildly accepted). But that's not what the article actually says. What it says is that you get a superficial number of shots at new technologies, and that number is limited by time/growth.
mcfunley 12y ago
> What the author should focus on is the lack of agility that prevents companies from experimenting and failing quickly. Wow weird someone should totally think about that, maybe it doesn't even have much to do with the programming language http://mcfunley.com/data-driven-products-now http://mcfunley.com/data-driven-products-now http://mcfunley.com/design-for-continuous-experimentation http://mcfunley.com/design-for-continuous-experimentation
- tie_ 12y ago
  Thanks for sharing! These presentations are awesome. As you point out, the topic is not about programming languages or technologies at all. It's about how you handle and benefit from innovation.

by tie_ 12y ago

SwellJoe 12y ago

So, call them "agility tokens". You've still got a limited supply when it comes to trying out new languages, new databases, new whatever. If you've got ten years Python and MySQL experience, and 95% of your codebase is in Python with data stored in MySQL, what do you gain and what do you lose by introducing Node.js and MongoDB into the mix? Sometimes it's worth the trade...other times it's not. But, Node.js and MongoDB is probably not going to provide enough of a productivity boost to make up for the costs of maintaining two codebases, two build/test/deploy environments, two databases, etc. You're making a trade; sometimes it's beneficial (usually long term), and often it's not (usually short term). In short, yes, I'm buying this. I think it's a perfectly sensible analogy; a somewhat leaky abstraction, if you will, since none of us actually have any "tokens" that we are trading in for a new database. But, the meaning is clear to me, and I can't find fault in it.

tie_ 12y ago
> Sometimes it's worth the trade...other times it's not. That's exactly what the article disputes - "It's not worth the trade if you had 3 of those already". Sure, you could drown in meaningless (for your project) new technologies, and this is a risk you should be aware of. If that's the meaning of the article that you are referring to, I agree it is sane (and also wildly accepted). But that's not what the article actually says. What it says is that you get a superficial number of shots at new technologies, and that number is limited by time/growth.

mcfunley 12y ago

> What the author should focus on is the lack of agility that prevents companies from experimenting and failing quickly. Wow weird someone should totally think about that, maybe it doesn't even have much to do with the programming language http://mcfunley.com/data-driven-products-now http://mcfunley.com/data-driven-products-now http://mcfunley.com/design-for-continuous-experimentation http://mcfunley.com/design-for-continuous-experimentation

tie_ 12y ago
Thanks for sharing! These presentations are awesome. As you point out, the topic is not about programming languages or technologies at all. It's about how you handle and benefit from innovation.