Every Railsconf keynote DHH gives is generally a rant against software like React. Regardless of individual preferences for certain APIs, I think projects are going to be built to favor the highest needs of its main decision makers.
If I think about the needs of big Rails decision makers, folks like Shopify have certain obvious needs to make the software work for them, and then DHH's camp's needs seem more in the realm of need to be righteous about certain software development topics. This generally seems like a good thing, but it's also just the way things are. If it ever weren't a good thing it would be hard to distinguish.
To speak to the work at Forem, our software has a certain complexity associated with its needs to power a public, global community like DEV— But I'm excited about the forcing factors of smaller communities. DEV needs to be a "powerful" engine in a lot of ways to deal with the complexity of human scale, but smaller communities need more simplicity than power in many ways, especially closed communities which mostly trust all the users implicitly.
If we resigned Forem to only being designed for communities at the scale of DEV or bigger, it might allow us to accept extra complexity or bloat.
True, one of the other aspects in the usefulness of tools is the ability to scale down. But that's probably the center of my argument and it's probaby tangential to the concept of "silver bullet". If a tool that's able to scale up, down, left and right is essentially a silver bullet, so if silver bullets in software are a chimera, aren't we the ones that are bad at labeling those tools?
I quote myself here:
Are we software developers simply bad at making choices for a thousand different reasons?
I should have added: "If so, does it matter, if the choice is good enough?"
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Every Railsconf keynote DHH gives is generally a rant against software like React. Regardless of individual preferences for certain APIs, I think projects are going to be built to favor the highest needs of its main decision makers.
If I think about the needs of big Rails decision makers, folks like Shopify have certain obvious needs to make the software work for them, and then DHH's camp's needs seem more in the realm of need to be righteous about certain software development topics. This generally seems like a good thing, but it's also just the way things are. If it ever weren't a good thing it would be hard to distinguish.
To speak to the work at Forem, our software has a certain complexity associated with its needs to power a public, global community like DEV— But I'm excited about the forcing factors of smaller communities. DEV needs to be a "powerful" engine in a lot of ways to deal with the complexity of human scale, but smaller communities need more simplicity than power in many ways, especially closed communities which mostly trust all the users implicitly.
If we resigned Forem to only being designed for communities at the scale of DEV or bigger, it might allow us to accept extra complexity or bloat.
True, one of the other aspects in the usefulness of tools is the ability to scale down. But that's probably the center of my argument and it's probaby tangential to the concept of "silver bullet". If a tool that's able to scale up, down, left and right is essentially a silver bullet, so if silver bullets in software are a chimera, aren't we the ones that are bad at labeling those tools?
I quote myself here:
I should have added: "If so, does it matter, if the choice is good enough?"