[HN Gopher] You Can't Buy Integration
___________________________________________________________________
You Can't Buy Integration
Author : mpweiher
Score : 35 points
Date : 2021-12-07 21:20 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (martinfowler.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (martinfowler.com)
| ako wrote:
| Regarding visual diffing: "The delta between source code commits
| can only be represented textually; graphical palettes are not
| designed to represent change over time."
|
| I would think visual systems might be in a better spot to
| visualize change over time. Some of Tufte's diagrams have
| interesting ideas of how this could be represented statically,
| but turning static code diffs into illustrated animations might
| even be better than code diffing...
| csours wrote:
| You Can't Buy Understanding of Your Problems
|
| You Can't Buy Someone Else Caring about Your Problems
|
| It seems like you can hire experts to understand and consultants
| to care about your problems, but someone has to bring the intent
| and to close the loop.
| vog wrote:
| I have always suspected this to be the case, but it is great to
| see it confirmed and well-explained in detail by an almost-
| authority in our field.
|
| I wonder if in the near future we'll see a similar article
| regarding security - "You Can't Buy Security".
| purerandomness wrote:
| Wow, didn't expect to read something as condescending as
| calling Martin Fowler an "almost-authority" in this thread...
| gnabgib wrote:
| While it's Martin's blog, most posts these days are by other
| people.. this particular one is by "Brandon Byars"
| debacle wrote:
| Fowler doesn't ship. When you read his articles, especially when
| they make you feel like _you_ know something others (especially
| those awful management types) don 't, remember that he hasn't
| made anything.
|
| He is a software life coach.
| robbintt wrote:
| It's not true. I am literally reading "Refactoring" right now.
| It's very good.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Fowler isn't the author so if you're reading this article you
| aren't reading one of _his_ (Fowler 's) articles. Check the
| byline: Brandon Byars. I have no knowledge of this person so
| can't comment on his particular relevance, but seriously, took
| 1 second to see who the author is.
| hobofan wrote:
| Not sure why you are writing this. Fowler isn't the author of
| the article.
|
| martinfowler.com nowadays is just the Thoughtworks blog. I
| can't remember the last time reading a article by Fowler on
| there.
| debacle wrote:
| Even better, we're listening to someone who has accomplished
| less than Martin Fowler.
| dang wrote:
| Please don't do personal attacks on HN. The damage to the
| ecosystem outweighs any benefit such harshness provides.
| You can make your substantive points without that.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| 988747 wrote:
| It is a weird article. Fowler obviously knows a lot about
| integration, but since his business is about writing software he
| tries to discredit "low code tools", so that more people use his
| services. I think that those tools are great for exactly the
| reasons indirectly stated in the article - they take the mind off
| the implementation and let you focus on bigger picture. I was
| involved in tons of integration project and they were always 90+%
| about communication: agreeing on interfaces. The actual
| implementation is almost always trivial, with tools like TIBCO or
| MuleSoft you can sometimes do it in 15-30 minutes (for simple
| flows, the more complex ones can take up to 3 days).
| random314 wrote:
| This article seems to be by Brandon, not Martin
| jefflombardjr wrote:
| Really great read. Long but worth it.
|
| This is a good critique of low-code/no-code in general. The root
| problem I see of "Unfortunately, when we frame the problem space
| that way, we have allowed our tools to think for us." is that in
| reality there are just not enough qualified software engineers
| out there.
| gnabgib wrote:
| The article isn't finished yet (see the footer)... so it'll be
| a longer read
| keyle wrote:
| I got bounced off a React job once, for not being good enough
| at React.
|
| Mind you I've been building SPA's since they weren't "a thing"
| and today I mostly use Vue.
|
| But for that role, they didn't like my lack of .env variables
| in the front-end (such as for things that end up in the html!),
| after a 3 hours coding test, and a couple of minot React-y tid
| bits they couldn't even clarify. Basically, not "idiomatic".
|
| Meanwhile, none of them could tell me how React actually works,
| beyond throwing jargon vomit. They couldn't write a web
| application without React.
|
| That is the sad state of affairs today; and I'm finding it's
| not just in the front-end, where you could argue that you need
| sanity on this pile of rubbles. It's also in the backend,
| especially on the auto-magic "DevOps!"
| hinkley wrote:
| I've hear the way to succeed with SAP is to reorganize your
| business to match either the default world view or some other
| cookie cutter variant. Essentially using it no code style.
|
| Otherwise you're exerting yourself doing "normal" things.
| That's not sustainable.
| cardosof wrote:
| The post isn't bad or anything, its just that coming from Fowler
| (or a partner) who sells software services and books on software
| for a living, it is as biased as it gets.
|
| I would love to read more on this particular topic but from the
| point of view of someone who needed to get the job done and tried
| no/low code tools and building his own thing and learned the pros
| and cons of each approach. Everything else looks like salespeople
| talking.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-07 23:00 UTC)