[PommeDeTerre]

I've seen your flawed argument used more and more often around here lately. It's pretty disappointing to see.

Somebody speaking out against deeply broken technologies or bad ideas that have received a lot of hype lately does not mean that such a person "hates progress" or is "resistant to change" or any utter nonsense like that.

Likewise, adopting so-called "new ideas" or "new technologies" does not necessarily mean that real progress is actually being made. JavaScript and NoSQL, for example, are generally regressions in most respects, even relative to 1990s- or 1980s-era technologies.

True progress happens when we move beyond our current abilities. It is not progress in any sense when we start using inferior programming languages or databases, for example.

[sanderjd]

I always seem to see you in any thread involving "new" technologies that you find "inferior", most of which are not very new and, like all technologies, are tough to put on a precise inferiority/superiority scale in an objective context-insensitive way. I'm beginning to move past annoyance to pure curiosity - why do you care so much what technologies other people find useful? In what way does people's enjoyment of Ruby/Rails, Javascript, NoSQL, etc. harm you so much that you have decided to come and be nasty any time anybody speaks positively of them?

[PommeDeTerre]

Software doesn't exist in a vacuum. It often has a lifespan far in excess of the involvement of the original developers. It can also have a very serious impact upon its users, its subsequent maintainers, and any organizations they may belong to.

I could not care any less if hobbyist developers want to use Ruby on Rails, JavaScript and NoSQL for own their personal projects that nobody else ever uses or has to maintain.

It's a different situation when such objectively-flawed technologies are used beyond that, however.

The broken software you or others write today using such horrid technologies may very well end up being inherited and maintained by me or one of my teams later on. We won't be happy when we have to waste time, effort, money and opportunity dealing with it and its flaws.

There are numerous, far better options out there. There are just no excuses for using poor technologies these days.

[sanderjd]

Your goal of seeing higher adoption of technologies you like and lower adoption of those you don't makes sense but your approach is misguided. I rarely see you speak positively of technologies you like, rather than negatively of those you don't. I rarely see you reasonably describe the shortcomings of technologies you don't like from a place of apparent expertise, rather than making ungrounded categorical statements ("hobbyist", "objectively-flawed", "horrid", "poor") about technologies that it doesn't seem like you have bothered learning about in any depth except that necessary to confirm your biases.

Plenty of people would prefer to inherit my broken software using horrid technologies than your broken software using different horrid technologies, and vice-versa. This unnecessary us-versus-them-ism in technology drives me crazy.