[Pannoniae]

Yes, and we don't have much diversity of thought. There is another story on the frontpage now - preaching the benefits of technological conformism by saying everyone should use the popular and boring technology of the day.

Generally, the whole profession is degrading to a state where any kind of innovation is shunned upon and the only "innovation" is rehashing the same concepts in a slightly different and slightly more complicated way.

There are not too many "let's build a website in D" companies or anything which is not utterly boring, inoffensive, bland and lacking any creativity.

[digging]

This is a terrible misrepresentation of the post regarding the use of stable/boring tech.

[Pannoniae]

How come? It might be a bit simplistic but I feel like I captured the grand meaning of it.

[rapatel0]

Innovation != using fancy new tech

Innovation == using new tech to solve problem and create value.

[digging]

I don't agree, I feel you misrepresented the tone and the meaning by twisting it into:

> preaching the benefits of technological conformism by saying everyone should use the popular and boring technology of the day.

This is a disingenuous way to describe the article.

The article is just saying that when you're writing important programs that matter for your business, use the most stable technology that has the features you need. Because it is stable, and has the most community resources. In other words, don't gamble your business on risky technology choices just because they're new.

That's difficult to argue with IMO, especially when the author explicitly endorses experimenting with personal projects.