[peter_l_downs]

I think a lot of new entrants to previously-well-explored spaces tend to label themselves as "modern" in order to signify that there is something new about their approach.

For instance, I have a migrations library that I descibre as "modern" because it is designed for a continuous deployment environment where you're automatically running migrations on container startup — there are tons of existing popular migrations libraries, but none of them work this way because they were written in the era that you'd manually run sql commands in prod. I say "modern" so that if anyone finds my library, they realize that it was created recently based on more recent dev/ops trends.

Maybe I should drop the "modern"? I do see a lot of people describe their code as "minimal" or "clean", which is pretty meaningless to me, so I get that "modern" could come across that way as well.

[tomwphillips]

Interesting. My take is more negative than that: modern indicates they are unaware of prior art and the key challenges in the particular space, and consequently the software is buggy and/or fundamentally broken its approach.

I think you should drop “modern” for something like “designed for CI”, “CI-first” or “CI-native”. It’s more informative.

[skeledrew]

Another issue with using such relative qualifiers IMO is that they become meaningless over time, as the namespace becomes polluted as every few years something addressing some problem with a potentially different approach is given a similar qualifier.

[Aeolun]

Maybe? I think, everything else being equal, that “modern” is still a relatively positive signal to me.