This tweet got a lot of likes and
replies, so
I should expand on it a bit. Most of the replies were additions to the
list: Visual Basic (tool for automating and scripting Windows),
Microsoft Access (great for small databases), PHP (which unseated Perl
as the powerhouse of the web). But some of the replies were the things
I deal with a lot: Explanations why my choices suck and I should choose
other things.
I'm mature, experienced, and confident enough so that now those comments
don't bother me, but it's a problem for novices in the tech community.
Learning is difficult and frustrating, and hearing that the effort taken
to learn a technology is worthless because that technology is "bad" is
demoralizing and can lead to people leaving tech altogether.
So, let me help you cut off some of these discussions:
X is Dead
- X is obsolete
- X is outdated
- X is dying
- X is dead
No, it isn't. Technologies don't die easily, and I can assure you that
once a technology has left the technology journalism circuit it will
continue still for quite some time.
What they might mean is "X is no longer a way to be successful", which is also
mostly false depending on how you measure success: If you want to make VC
money, that is probably true. If you want to learn about technology or solve
problems using technology, it is entirely false. If you want to make a career
in technology, it's certainly false: Even old technology needs support,
maintenance, and development.
What they might also mean is "X is no longer the only technology that can solve
its specific problem", and that's a good thing. Technology evolves when it is
exposed to new ideas, and there's no better way to get exposed to new ideas
than to compete with other technology. This is why FORTRAN has a new spec
coming out, as well as languages like Ada and COBOL.
"X is dead" is anti-marketing. Don't be taken in.
X is Bad
- X is ugly
- X is unmaintainable
- X is terrible
- X considered harmful
- X is bad
Technology is invented at a specific time for a specific purpose. There aren't
many technologies that gain widespread acceptance while being unsuitable for
their purposes. So, how can that surviving technology be entirely bad?
What they almost always mean is "X is bad to use now", and that's also often
false: While there may be more and better solutions to the particular problem
(which, as explained above, is a good thing), a surviving technology often
still has niches where it fits better than any other. This does mean that you
need to do your research: Look at the problem domain, find the solutions, and
if you have time, try them out to see which one you like better. Don't let "X
is bad" stop you from trying X out to see if it solves your problem.
What they may also mean is "X teaches bad things", which is vehemently false:
Learning about the history of a technology is important. Learning about
historical problems and solutions is important. Technology is built for a
reason. Learning those reasons will explain the design decisions made. Learning
about design decisions and tradeoffs can teach you how to proceed when nothing
is a good option. No technology is built to be deliberately terrible (though
some technologies are certainly satirical or farcical, they are excellent
satire/farce and should be evaluated as such, like INTERCAL).
I have, in fact, learned the most from learning other languages designs.
Java taught me a lot about OO, which I brought in to all my programs.
Using pthreads in C++ taught me a lot about process safety and
message-passing, which I then started using Zeromq
to solve for me (when I can, but I still know how to solve that problem
without if needed). The more shell scripting I learn, the less work
I end up having to do (fact). Shell taught me fantastic lessons about
composability of programs that I never thought possible, and I’ve got
some projects that take full advantage of that.
"X is bad" is almost always a disingenuous attempt to get you to use their
favorite technology. Don't be fooled!
Technology is not a popularity contest. Technology is not good because it's
popular, and it's not bad because it is unpopular. Technology is not good
because its unique, and it's not bad because it exists in a crowded maze of
solutions, all alike. We need to evaluate technology objectively and
critically, whether popular or unpopular. And we must always remember to be
kind to people using technology.
Would you like to help CPAN Testers during
meta::hack
v2? Join
us on IRC in #cpantesters-discuss on
irc.perl.org,
join our mailing list on
lists.perl.org,
or e-mail me directly at doug@preaction.me.
With meta::hack
v2 only
two weeks away, I’ve written down my todo list for the hackathon. With
another brand-new machine graciously provided by
ByteMark, who have been hosting CPAN
Testers for years, this year’s hackathon will involve more devops tasks
to improve reliability and stability of the various parts of the
project.
The new server will be the host for CPAN Testers backend
processes, the
processes that turn the raw incoming data into the various reports used
by the websites and downstream systems. It will also be the new home for
the CPAN and BackPAN
mirrors that CPAN Testers uses for data, and provides to external users
as part of CPAN’s mirrors list.
Continue reading Help CPAN Testers During meta::hack v2...
I said "I believe men can be better" last week regarding a job ad I was
reading, and I've
been thinking that this is a thing I've rarely heard from anyone. I hear, all
the time, aphorisms disparaging men and removing all agency and blame for bad
behavior:
- "Boys will be boys"
- "That's just how guys are"
- "You should have known that would happen -- he's a guy"
Growing up, I expected to be a terrible person. I expected to be
uncontrollable. I expected to want to hurt people. And I didn't want to be that
person. When I didn't become that person, I still knew that was what people
expected of me.
So, through the power of stereotype threat, a shy, sensitive boy turns into a
sullen, introverted man who struggles with depression. Because nobody ever told
him that men could be better.
And, through the magic of stereotype excuses, sexual predators occupy our
highest offices and control our most powerful institutions. Because nobody ever
told them that men had to be better.
