|
|
|
|
|
|
by ryan-allen
5683 days ago
|
|
|
> I would argue it already has. Now, has it transformed the entire industry? Obviously no. Just like there's no silver bullet, you have to pick the appropriate tool for the job. Having an understanding about the tools available will aid you in making better decisions. I think that's a slippery slope, or at least can be. Software developers don't just use tools, they also make them. You can't liken that to typical trades like carpentry because carpenters don't make their tools, they just use them. There is _always_ going to be a better tool for any job, but the criteria for said 'right tool' I think needs to be perfectly spelled out. Is it a tool that is the most conceptually pure? Is it the one that we can hire developers for easily? Given that developers can also make tools is it one that we can design ourselves? Walking backwards and forwards across this line of building things with tools and building tools confuses the crap out of people. I don't think it's until developers mature that they realise this, and then they've often done 10 years of work that probably is, well, dare I say 'wrong'! This is the last thing I'll say. Software developers are amazingly good at coming up with a plethora of rhetoric why they should or shouldn't do anything. Look at their motives closely and you'll discover some interesting driving factors... |
|
|
It is difficult to perfectly spell out and continue innovating at the same time. Just look at W3C. They're so far behind standardizing, that the industry in the current state has moved so for ahead ahead. Like I said, there are different motivations for people picking certain technologies, and when those motivations fall outside of picking the right tool for the right job, it's probably a bad idea. You can't really standardize this industry because it's evolving so fast. just look at technology 10 years ago. It's a totally different landscape. This couldn't have happend with standardization.
> Is it a tool that is the most conceptually pure? Is it the one that we can hire developers for easily?
I think it's a mistake to hire people based on a skill set and not the capabilities or potential. Technologies come and go, and as a business, you mind end up at a point where you realize you need to switch technologies, for a good reason (either the one that you're using isn't appropriate or your business model has changed and you need a different tool, or whatever reason). If you're left with developers who only know how to do one thing and can't switch technologies, you're probably going to have a hard time.
> Software developers are amazingly good at coming up with a plethora of rhetoric why they should or shouldn't do anything. Look at their motives closely and you'll discover some interesting driving factors...
I agree. Just like there are competent and incompetent developers, you have developers making choices for the right or wrong reasons. That's why hiring is a difficult process, because distinguishing between these types is not straightforward. That's why there's a fight right now for talent. That's why there's a huge gap between the professionals. Because it's not a standard, and things move too fast to set things in stone.