TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A student asked how I keep us innovative – I don't

275 点作者 SerCe超过 1 年前

23 条评论

dvas超过 1 年前
Socialize the design: <i>&quot;Find people who you think will be contrarian, and have them poke holes in the design&quot;</i><p>Happy to see this mentioned! By involving everyone, the experienced engineers will usually ask the harder questions and test the assumption of your design and the juniors to learn and re-evaluate assumptions they have about building software. Almost a win-win for everyone.<p>Even though in these discussions there may be a social aspect where certain individuals are trying that much harder to find disadvantages of a proposed design (many reasons which readers are probably familiar with). However, I think this becomes a net positive to the overall engineering as everyone tries to bring their A-game to these discussions.<p>Anyhow, my experience has been that collectively reasoning about a design (assuming the team feels comfortable with criticism) will always get results quicker.
评论 #37836414 未加载
评论 #37835600 未加载
评论 #37833907 未加载
评论 #37834537 未加载
评论 #37835015 未加载
评论 #37837477 未加载
评论 #37836636 未加载
scubbo超过 1 年前
A relevant slideshow (with captions): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boringtechnology.club&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;boringtechnology.club&#x2F;</a><p>You can tell it&#x27;s getting old because it used Phony Stark as a symbol for innovation, but the underlying message is timeless.
评论 #37835018 未加载
atomicnature超过 1 年前
However, isn&#x27;t innovation usually about building something exciting from output perspective, rather than about the building materials? We want the most reliable building materials, but how you put them together to get novel functionality, or other desirable characteristics at a higher level is what makes a system innovative.
评论 #37851443 未加载
评论 #37835426 未加载
ngrilly超过 1 年前
I am a proponent of &quot;choosing boring technologies&quot;, but I don&#x27;t see how it relates to building innovative products and services. You can create an innovative product or service using boring technologies under the hood. I really like the post otherwise.
评论 #37834745 未加载
评论 #37834800 未加载
评论 #37834752 未加载
评论 #37834948 未加载
Joel_Mckay超过 1 年前
Thank you for being honest with the kid, as a lot of folks exploit peoples inexperience for financial reasons as policy.<p>In general, there are a few assertions people make:<p>A. The industry always changes<p>B. The industry always follows the same trend<p>Both are incorrect, but rather the truth floats somewhere between the two.<p>A better question is often &quot;what skills will offer long-term fiscal utility?&quot;<p>The answer to that utility question exposes the dirty side of the tech industry:<p>1. is the concept an orthogonal theme from purely Academic or Commercial Marketers? If Yes, than the probability it will still be around in 2 years is vanishingly small.<p>2. is the role occupied by Senior staff over 35 at more than 6 firms? No, than the probability of redundancy increases exponentially with time, as the skill demand is under artificial supply manipulation due to wage suppression, regulatory capture, and or tax incentives refactored into a subsidy.<p>3. what is the average ratio of staff with the skill still present at firms over 3 years? if less than 5%, than the roles still fall under churn-and-burn economics, and at some point the stock valuation bump will need ritualistic HR sacrifices. if over 90%, than a roles true value is marginal, and will be bid down in pay over time.<p>4. An &quot;award for the worlds smartest sucker&quot; is not a certificate that will hold value. Anyone that claims they know what will happen in 5 years is a fool selling something like nonsense vendor certifications, media packages, and or political rhetoric (STEM etc.)<p>5. Does the skill require physical presence? No, than the law of outsourcing bids down skill value over time due to irrational competitors.<p>6. Integrity in whatever you choose to do is important regardless of the role. For example, someone using an emotionally charged subject in an 72% LLM generated article will antagonize the wrong people eventually.<p>7. Copying what others do... often means one will land in second place... or worse.<p>Good luck out there, =)
koonsolo超过 1 年前
Advocates of new technology mostly only mentions the benefits. I always ask what the drawbacks are, and when the answer is &quot;None&quot;, I reply &quot;Ah, so you don&#x27;t know the drawbacks yet?&quot;<p>Everything is a tradeoff. If you want to switch to something newer, make sure you know the benefits and drawbacks of both systems, and then decide if it&#x27;s worth the effort and risk.
GrumpyYoungMan超过 1 年前
Solid article. The one quibble I have is IMO that there should be mention that, when the choice is made to use an untried technology, it needs to be acknowledged and communicated that this carries some level of risk and an increased chance of not meeting the project goals.
datadrivenangel超过 1 年前
The bleeding edge is called the bleeding edge, because you risk cutting yourself on it!<p>Innovation can be good, but you have to understand the risk&#x2F;reward profiles.
a1o超过 1 年前
&gt; On my personal projects, I will usually go with whatever sparks joy.<p>I think this is the right thing for personal projects. I think throwaway toy projects should be free to go that route too.
评论 #37834469 未加载
评论 #37835084 未加载
xnx超过 1 年前
Very sound advice. It&#x27;s amazing how many projects never identify what problem they&#x27;re trying to solve, or lose track of it immediately to focus on the technology.
评论 #37834419 未加载
kubb超过 1 年前
This post seems to be mistaken in its understanding of innovation. It seems to take it as using new technologies. But this is a misunderstanding.<p>Innovation means inventing novel solutions that solve relevant problems better than what has been known before. This could be creating a new tech, and using it, but it could also be applying existing tech in a novel way.<p>So you could be innovative using old technology, and you could use new technology, but not be innovative.<p>I guess the company where the author of the post works is neither innovative, nor do they use new technology, but there&#x27;s space on the market for companies like that. Principal engineers who work there don&#x27;t even need to know the meaning of innovation.
评论 #37838579 未加载
jackblemming超过 1 年前
Not interested in hearing people parroting the boring technology mantra over and over. Maybe say something novel for once. Also maybe choose technology based on pragmatic metrics, not how old it is. “Choose boring technology” is like MBAs saying “we’re data driven”.<p>And I guarantee if we look at this persons tech stack it’s probably slathered with a bunch of shiny new AWS crud that’s “web scale”.
评论 #37837035 未加载
reactordev超过 1 年前
&gt;&quot;Now reduce down the solution&quot;<p>I love this part. This is the validation after proof that you indeed, solved the correct problem. Because if you can&#x27;t shave away the complexity to the underlying problem and &quot;get to the heart of it&quot; then you didn&#x27;t solve the problem yet. You merely handled its edge-cases.
ulizzle超过 1 年前
It’s a leading question, likely political, trying to pose innovation as some sort of universal good when engineers intuitively ask “what” exactly they mean by that, as evidenced by this post.<p>Any engineer knows intuitively that the answer when it comes to picking new technologies in your architecture is always: “it depends” but that’s not the point.<p>When it comes to socializing the design, imo, it’s another ideologically motivated waste of time. In order to poke holes you must know the problem well enough to do so, but that’s not what people do on their “sprint planning”. Instead everyone has their own problems, which they must complete by the end of the sprint, or get a ding in their performance review.<p>With no accountability in their estimates, there’s no pressure for accuracy. That’s why tests are better than code reviews.
mlindner超过 1 年前
This is a great answer if the thing you’re building isn’t innovative. If it’s just a nodejs storefront site. However it’s a pretty garbage answer if you’re say trying to create a new thing that’s not been seen before.
innagadadavida超过 1 年前
The tearoom is ask is “Can I hire an average software engineer with 2-5y experience who’ll will have no problems keeping this running 99.999% of the time while doing development and deployments?
mo_42超过 1 年前
I expected something different: whether the product that someone develops should be innovative or not. Rather the author writes about the underlying technology that is innovative or not.<p>Neither of these two need to be innovative IMHO. Technology should enable us to do something useful. Or translated into business terms, it should be a profitable business as profit is a proxy of how useful a product or service is to people.
taylorbuley超过 1 年前
I feel this. But at the same time, there are these unproven toolchains that just feel right and I am OK adopting them. GraphQL is one today. React (and before it, Backbone.js) before. Hell, even CoffeeScript. Angular 1.0 was one thing, but I don&#x27;t regret a single one of those other implementations.
Justsignedup超过 1 年前
Well put, and is a great read for people to understand the fundamentals of leading an eng team. What sort of thinking goes into it. I feel like this perfectly explains how I need to think on a daily basis.<p>Lead engs are about bringing order to a chaotic eng process.
YetAnotherNick超过 1 年前
This is the case where author has a fixed story and then filled rest of the details with good sounding sentences.<p>&gt; Have a problem with PostgreSQL? Pop it into a search engine and you&#x27;ll get an answer right away. But have a problem with a vector DB? Comb the GitHub Issues or Discord and hope that you find an answer<p>&gt; They often have great ecosystems around them<p>&gt; They use well-known concepts<p>PostgreSQL issues are generally significantly harder to debug than vector db in my experience. In general, a lot of times I found documentation and concepts to be significantly better for quite a bit of newer technologies like tailwind, caddy, gin, golang than say springboot or react or oracle DB or C++ or cassandra. Comparing PostgreSQL to graph DB or vector DB is very apples to oranges as one can&#x27;t replace other.<p>Telling old is better than new in general is both wrong and harmful to software engineering.
评论 #37839810 未加载
__xor_eax_eax超过 1 年前
Meh. Reading the techniques behind the giant GCloud DDoS before this, if you&#x27;re not understanding the latest and greatest technology and you&#x27;re attackers are, you&#x27;re going to be victimized.<p>To me this sounds like a stogy old grey-hair being defensive about why its okay to be obsolete. Its not
tikhonj超过 1 年前
Another &quot;use popular tech because it&#x27;s popular&quot; article dressed up as engineering wisdom. &quot;Nobody gets fired for choosing IBM&quot; isn&#x27;t supposed to be aspirational!<p>The most effective organizations I&#x27;ve seen have been the ones who are the most willing to both use &quot;non-standard&quot; technologies <i>and</i> develop their own tools in-house. There&#x27;s a question of causation—are they more effective because they&#x27;re open-minded, or do they get away with weird choices because they&#x27;re more effective?—and, from what I&#x27;ve seen, it&#x27;s a bit of both. But I&#x27;ve absolutely seen, first-hand, that top-down standardization on enterprise &quot;best practices&quot; is absolutely <i>not</i> a recipe for anything beyond passable mediocrity. If anything is a sign of weak engineering leadership, it&#x27;s that.<p>I&#x27;m not saying that a team should use different technologies <i>for the sake of using different technologies</i>, I&#x27;m saying that strong engineering leadership means having a clear technical vision and culture where the popularity of a tool is very low on the list of considerations when choosing what to use.
评论 #37835583 未加载
评论 #37835446 未加载
评论 #37839394 未加载
评论 #37836577 未加载
willcipriano超过 1 年前
Would you consider a different pattern, woven on a old loom a new technology?<p>A app is not a &quot;new technology&quot;. A microprocessor is a technology and the code you run on it is just another pattern on the loom.
评论 #37834520 未加载
评论 #37834477 未加载