insanitybit

6 ms·

61.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I've read it a dozen times at least since it's been released. I don't think you're understanding my criticism. The payoff of the article is and has been that people say "choose boring technology", which is bad.
62.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
> It’s a cute way of saying that you can only do 2-3 new things. Why? What if doing 1 new thing saves you from having to do 3 old things? Why 2? Why 3? > The post is written for an engineer at a startup as a reminder that although it’
63.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
Back in 2015 neither did the "boring" ones cited in the article. The point is that you can at least talk about those things and evaluate them.
64.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I don't get it. The inspiration is your product requirements, why would I need to say "it's boring" to get things started? I feel like I've been pretty clear. 1. "Boring" is a bad term that obfuscates thin
65.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
> When I'm discussing technical solutions with colleagues, especially senior ones, I can point to a tech being "boring" and they'll know exactly what I mean - that choosing it will probably mean better support, smooth
66.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I don't have a technology stack. Do you just mean what am I using for current projects? At work we use Rust primarily for services. It was chosen because we're doing a lot of low level and performance sensitive work. The risk we d
67.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I'm not, the post is what adds fog to what should be clear and direct conversations about technical solutions as per their ability to solve a product concern.
68.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
That has nothing to do with anything.
69.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
Then the word "boring" is pointless and the article is reductive.
70.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
People also love coming up with any way to use Postgres or whatever thing they're already familiar with and they get to say "it's boring" like that means anything. > Encouraging your team to be selective in where they
71.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
The point is exactly that - bad decisions happen when your reasoning is based on silly terms like "boring" or "hyped" or whatever. The solution is to discuss the merits of each solution as it pertains to the problem spac
72.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
Replacing one bias with another feels silly, I can justify bad decisions just as well either way. Just have real discussions about the technical merits, not that crazy of an idea.
73.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
> That's quite hard to do for solutions that you don't know the details. That's a great thing to discuss when deciding on the technology. Maybe you should aim for solutions that you know well, or a solution that makes migr
74.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I obviously don't agree that it's useful as a communication tool though. Why not "Use the technology that's appropriate for our use case"? That seems radically better and doesn't suffer from weird misinterpre
75.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
Then it's useless. If I have to take the context into account then I should be prepared to have a conversation about the requirements and how the technology fits it, which "boring" does not facilitate (and discourages).
76.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
> Well mysql likely will turnout to be better choice than choosing "Cloud scale nosql DBs" when evaluators have rather limited hands-on knowledge about either of them. Obviously a straw-man, but also... justify it then? That&#x
77.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I don't agree with the article though and I dislike the influence it has had. I have seen engineers use "Boring" to justify "I know this technology" for situations where that technology is a bad fit. Conversations a
78.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
If it's understood then it's pointless. I also reject that it's understood. I have no idea why you're talking about Prinicipia Mathematica as if I'm advocating for some sort of formal verification or extraordinary r
79.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I don't think it's exhausting to determine if a solution fits your requirements and I don't think much about the people who would find it exhausting. I'm not suggesting some insane formal verification, but you really can
80.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
CV driven development is just as well guarded against by asking someone to justify their technical decisions based on the requirements and how the solution meets them. So "boring" does nothing to further that. > More, I think y
81.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
So then say that.
82.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I don't think that context is relevant to my comment. I didn't say "in hindsight, those technologies are great!", I pointed out that "boring" is meaningless, and any meaning you attribute to it like "defin
83.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I'll push back against this, despite it being so popular. I dislike the arbitrary "innovation tokens" and I think this entire concept really blurs the lines and feels sort of unserious. Engineers should understand requirement
84.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I'm not advocating for that at all.
85.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I've never worked at a company with an "ethics" employee. It seems odd. Can someone explain what the point is? > She has held a variety of academic positions at Temple University, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylva
86.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
I feel like you're just restating the premise, which I'm explaining won't work or at least will see significant challenges. Companies won't touch your software, whether you support a corporate license or not, and you hav
87.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
So the path for open source databases is to have a massive sales team, customer support, POC contracts, etc?
88.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
Not really. How would they even evaluate the software? This only works in theory.
89.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
It's not that companies won't pay for it, it's that it is banned . Legal teams at these companies set the policy.
90.
by insanitybit 2mo ago
The issue is that AGPL is flatly banned at many companies, so now any company that even wants to test this database out is going to have to seek a contract, which they won't.

More ›