i_like_robots

Joined 14 years ago

Karma
112
Submissions
47
Member since
Jun 17
https://www.matthinchliffe.dev
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 2 months ago
Poor choices whether influenced by this article or engineers chasing CV points are no different. Boring technology is a tool or communication device like any other. I hope in your situation you were able to influence the engineers utilising it poorly to reconsider.
Comment · 2 months ago
You seem to agree with the lecture/article but disagree with the title.

However, it's influenced a lot of people for more than a decade and the snippy title might well have something to do with that.

Comment · 2 months ago
I see innovation as a guardrail against CV driven development. More, I think you need to consider the context of when this was written. It was a period of rapid innovation/evolution - I remember more than a handful of projects failing (either undelivered or rewritten well under their expected lifecycle) around this time because teams had taken bets on new tech either they didn't know how to use well or the tech didn't take off and was a dead end.

> What if you know NodeJS really well?

Then you consider it boring. I'm sure Node and MongoDB were singled out by the author because at the time of writing they were still relatively new and undergoing periods of rapid development and change.

Comment · 1 year ago
Comment · 2 years ago
Comment · 2 years ago
Very cool - reminded me of https://github.com/creationix/dombuilder which I have... memories of. Shout out too to https://microjs.com/ for allowing me to relive some nostalgia.
Comment · 2 years ago
Comment · 2 years ago
Take a look on https://gifcities.org/ - I'm sure you'll find what you're looking for!
Comment · 3 years ago
Congrats, this looks really nice! I recently finished a side project using Fastify and the Fastify Swagger plugin (which extends the built-in request and response validation and can dynamically generate an Open API definition) which was a good experience overall but the addition of request mocking and the solid documentation site shown here could tempt me to revisit it.
Comment · 4 years ago
I mostly agree - that was the intention of the caveat - although I don't think there would be too much harm done if somebody started with ES5 then layered ES20xx features or new browser APIs on top as needed.
Comment · 4 years ago
Comment · 4 years ago
> Webpack's loaders can't really check your types because, without doing a lot of extra magic, they operate on one file at a time.

This is the point folks really must understand when setting up a new tooling pipeline to deal with TypeScript. Certainly all of the module bundlers I'm aware of operate in this way.

To explain further for anyone curious; for TSC to work effectively it must construct and understand the entire "compilation". To do this it starts by performing a glob match (according to your include/exlude rules) to find every TypeScript file within the project. Resolving and type checking the entire compilation every time the bundler calls for a transform on a file is very slow due to lots of repeated and unnecesssary work so most TS bundler plugins have to work around this. Unfortunately, they're still relatively slow so type checking and bundling code separately is often the best way to go.

Comment · 4 years ago
Like you I tend to agree that the effort delivering front end projects often seems to outweigh the value added over recent years. I can think of half a dozen projects I've seen over the last few years where the effort teams put into figuring out stacks of new tools was an order of magnitude greater than the value added (and most of the projects failed to deliver or became haunted forests soon afterwards which is even worse!) It's not sustainable, businesses are wasting far too much money and too many talented developers are left feeling inadequate.

The most important thing in any organisation is to ensure teams are setup to succeed - that means they're using tools which enable them to work efficiently, ship easily and reliably, and their work can be maintained in future.

With that in mind, my advice would be:

1. Ensure there is a process where new tools are scrutinised by peers. I always push developers and teams to explain their tech choices in terms of the value added and often as we dig into this together the justifications melt away. Asking for a timeboxed proof of concept can also be effective - battling toolchain woes and trying to manipulate tools into solving the problems a team actually has often helps lead to better decision making (think https://boringtechnology.club/)

2. Try to work in organisations where developers can be close to their users and are empowered to suggest new features and self serve analytics data. Teams able to build empathy with their users and are motivated to solve problems for those users are more likely to favour choices which provide value quickly - this is a big nudge towards making simpler choices.

3. Give developers space for learning and experimenting. Whilst tempting, picking up a suite of new tools to deliver each new project is a really crap way to encourage self development because those new tools will more often be a big distraction than a force multiplier. Many developers are highly motivated by trying out new tools and frameworks, and some of those might lead to something great in future, so give developers the time and space to try them and make sure their learnings are shared with the team to help level them up too.

Comment · 4 years ago
This is how we did it at the FT. We looked at on demand HLS or DASH via our CDN as well but this didn't become a requirement during my time there.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton