| ...this is just like $IRRELEVANT_OLD_TECH. Yeah on the surface. $IRRELEVANT_OLD_TECH didn't catch on or it wouldn't be irrelevant but _why_ didn't it catch on?... I'm a young person, too. Lipstick on a pig doesn't make a cow, you know. Arguments like "It's only similar on the surface" I've found tend to give too much credence to incidental properties - this runs on X, it's widespread unlike previous solutions, it's better at specific Y use case, etc. Yet regardless of underlying platform, the concepts do not tend to evolve quickly, and it is all too often the case that their limitations have been discovered either in academia or engineering practice. These limitations will eventually be uncovered again, and no one learns from their failures or successes. Where languages and platforms shift, architecture will always bite you. As for the reasons why, that's another fallacy. It assumes the status quo always maintains an equilibrium of what is inherently technical superior, and that popularity implies great technical qualities. The reasons can be plentiful, often it's unfortunate historical circumstances. It's comforting to think we're on to something truly new, but this is rarely the case: http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html |