Programmer Jeff Atwood says that using “new and shiny” technology isn’t what counts; it’s about using tools that work. His rant is programming language-specific, but it rings true for gadgets, software, social networking sites. (via)
I'm a geek with a love for all things tech. I'm also an online business consultant with expertise in SEO, SMM, and digital marketing strategies.
as i’ve heard around the halls at work, “Shipping is a feature”… as in, actual, working, shipping code is better than new shiny sorta working code.
in a slightly related note, it appears that your FB connect kinda sorta works. 🙂
Kinda sorta is a good way to put it. 🙂
I’m not disagreeing on the point of how unproductive it can be to try to stay on the latest tech (and since I relate to programming language example, I’m addressing it from that angle), but I think it’s important to know when to stop implementing a specific technology in new solutions, and when to make it a priority to phase it out. I spent half of my learning in College on mainframe Cobol, JCL, and CICS. That’s more time than I spent with Java, .Net, PHP or any other language(s) (it’s how my school was geared). I’m certain that there were some newer technologies that we didn’t cover, and I’m fine with that. But after 2 years of intensively working with Cobol my professional opinion is that it should not be used in new development. To say that you don’t have to be using the latest/greatest is fine, but to imply that you can use whatever you want as long as you’re good at it has some seriously negative implications. If I build your solution in Cobol instead of Java, you will have a much harder time finding another programmer to maintain it when I’m gone, and you very well might have to pay them 25% more. If I use ancient non-normalized formats for data storage it will probably cost you a lot more if you want to migrate it later. So really, “new and shiny” doesn’t get more done, but it’s probably wise to know when to replace your worn-out tools.
Comments are closed.