1. 25

  2. 15

    Java, XML, Soap, XmlRpc, Hailstorm, .NET, Jini, oh lord I can’t keep up. And that’s just in the last 12 months!

    Oh simpler times when we only had 7 new technologies in the last 12 months. Also after I read that I realized this was published in 2001 and it suddenly made a lot more sense.

    All they’ll talk about is peer-to-peer this, that, and the other thing. Suddenly you have peer-to-peer conferences, peer-to-peer venture capital funds, and even peer-to-peer backlash with the imbecile business journalists dripping with glee as they copy each other’s stories: “Peer To Peer: Dead!”

    s/peer-to-peer/blockchain/g, this may have been from 2001 but it’s still so relevant

    1. 2

      What are the 2018 equivalents? Obviously Blockchain: Is there anything else that has that ‘new hotness’ quality which makes it irresistible to neophiles?

      1. 8

        IOT, AI/ML, Serverless and of course: microservices

        1. 3

          Oo yes. Docker et al definitely qualify.

          1. 2

            I forgot the most important one: kubernetes

        2. 1

          Also of interest is the converse: what are the things that have recently lost (or are in the process of losing) this quality?

          1. 3

            Peer to peer.

            1. 3

              recently… :)

            2. 2

              I’m hearing less about big data and nosql

              1. 1

                Bigdata has folded into AI/ML or just analytics

                1. 2

                  On top of it, we have a new fad of stronger-consistency DB’s with SQL layers. One of few fads I like, too. I hope they design even more. :)

        3. 4

          This is pretty one-sided. When it comes to building software (or anything for that matter), there’s both how we build that thing, and actually building the thing itself. Often how well we can build that thing or how well it can do whatever it’s job is is directly impacted by how we build it, which includes what tools and techniques we use to build it.

          It’s good for people out there to have this sort of attitude, because we need people on both sides of the equation, however, the way we build things and what those things are capable of advances because of the astronauts who are “wasting his time”. Those astronauts are who built the tools and patterns that let others just build the thing, and do so in a successful manner.

          I can see his side of the argument here. People who spend a lot of time thinking about abstractions and patterns may struggle to see direct application of those abstractions, which is why it’s good to have people who can take those abstractions and create useful products out of them. But to say those people are unproductive and wasting time is pretty insulting.

          1. 2

            The idea that abstractions are useless always reminds me of the haskell community (a popular community here on lobste.rs). Useless on purpose. Never trust something “useful”.