All in all, I do wish these articles wouldn't make it to the front page of HN, because they don't really add much value to the community, but simply acts as a negative rant, not adding anything constructive.
All in all, I do wish these articles wouldn't make it to the front page of HN, because they don't really add much value to the community, but simply acts as a negative rant, not adding anything constructive.
In my opinion the positive value provided by [legacy tool X is really bad] is if you read it like [X is being used not for technical merit but just because of momentum and the fact that we have grown comfortable with it and we really should be adopting alternatives Y or Z at a faster rate than we do]. Titles of articles are often "X is bad" or "X considered harmful" or some other inflammatory clickbait title. That's unfortunate, but it's how the web works.
If just a handful of people read these posts, nod, and then take a look at Rust (for example) then that's value. Yesterday X was git, on saturday X was glibc, today X is C++ and so on.