1. 17
  1.  

  2. 13

    While I agree with the sentiment I think it’s interesting that the site requires 43 scripts and two ad trackers to display this “text”.

    Upon closer reading of the article it appears to change from run less software, to run less software yourself, pay Amazon to run it for you. Which perhaps explains their comfort with the aforementioned 43 scripts.

    1. 7

      Can we just stop commenting about the number of scripts, the size of the images and other non-content related stuff? If you guys want to do that all days long, launch a sister lobster instance about that.

      I think as a community we would all benefit most from exchanging about the content of articles than spamming around about size pages and design choices.

      1. 5

        I wasn’t attempting a me-to moment of js bashing, but rather a critique on the authors pursuit of less. Please see comment below. One would hope they could express an opinion without being labelled as spam.

        As an aside you may have noticed the popularity of articles about text only websites/browsers, reducing cruft, conservative web development etc in this community which suggests it may be something that people care about.

        1. 3

          I do see the irony, but without looking at the size of the page, or images, the article is surprisingly pure. There’s no ad, it’s perfect on mobile, the content is first class citizen,… I really don’t think that the number of scripts or else is even remotely as interesting as the content.

          As an aside you may have noticed the popularity of articles about text only websites/browsers

          Yes, and I think that beside expressing this opinion that can be stated on +50% of the links posted, it’s not gonna help in any way. The rest of the web is not going to change because users complained on a link agregation website.

          Beside, I really feel that we’re all loosing something by commenting more about this than the content (that I found great on this article).

      2. 3

        Number of scripts means nothing. They could have easily compiled it all in to one file and it would be functionally the same thing. The scripts do some neat tricks like loading images in layers when you scroll on to them so you see the foreground slightly before the background.

        The whole point of run less software is to minimise the time spent by their engineers managing software so if Amazon can do it thats better. I guess a better title would be “manage less software”.

        1. 2

          True, the number in itself means nothing but it does suggest lots of extra code, perhaps fewer scrolling images and ‘neat tricks’ would have equalled less time spent on the article?

          I whole heartedly agree we shouldn’t be chasing the latest greatest fad, and there is generally a balance between buying and building that needs to be struck.

          Just a tad ironic that their pursuit of less, and desire for simple required so much code / bling to get across. It sounds a little like they just passed the complexity buck on, which is fine, but it’s different from a pursuit of simple, or praising old trusty tech in favour of new and shiny.

      3. 4

        That was the most beautiful presentation of a blog post I have ever seen.

        There is a lot of truth in what is being said as well. Its not just about using less stuff but also about not chasing fads or cool obscure tech. While the new shiny thing may seem really good, the value in using older boring stuff is it has been well tested and just about every issue has already been encountered and solved.

        1. 4

          I really like the 2nd point, and the examples at the end; however, could this whole article not be summarized as “Make efficient choices?”

          There’s no clear example where the author specifically said “we’re not running less software,” outside of saying MySQL + PostgreSQL.

          The author even contradicts this somewhat by dropping MongoDB but adding DynamoDB.

          With the sword example, yes it’d be stupid to bring 5 swords into battle. If you’re outsourcing work, why not just hire 4 more soldiers and wield the sword your best with?

          1. 3

            I seem to agree what I imagine to be the implied message here, but it seems to disagree with the actual text in a couple places.

            Choose standard technology … [an analogy alluding to medieval war technology]

            The analogy is interesting, considering that wars are often won by inventing and using new and sometimes crazy ways to kill people and destroy things. So not at all by using standard technology.

            But then they say things like

            All we had to do was write a small amount of highly performant Ruby and Go code to knit the two standard technologies together

            The standard programming language by their rules would be Java. Ruby and Go are both a bit fringe in comparison.

            1. 2

              Choose standard technology … [an analogy alluding to medieval war technology]

              I think they had fantastic novels in mind when writing that… with older weapons having mistical powers.

              Ruby and Go can be somewhat standard compared to F# or D for example (or even Haskell).

            2. 2

              Ultimately, I couldn’t extract much out of this article besides the common platitudes about competitiveness and efficiency. Even though I generally agree with the idea of outsourcing technology, my reasons for it are different, and in any case, they’re based on hunches and conjecture, just as Intercom’s.

              You can also find articles stating just the opposite: using niche technology gives you an advantage. There are companies succeeding either way, and I suspect the reasons for success can probably be better attributed to their marketing departments and luck. Technology is mostly incidental.

              I’m not even sure that the title is supported by the article. It’s not clear that they are running less software in any meaningful way.