Why are there so many articles like this written? Who are they for?
> New technology is always better than old technology
No one believes this.
> New technology is always better than old technology
No one believes this.
Honestly, that’s one of the common criticisms I see of HN: That it’s full of people who believe they’re doing something new when they’re just recreating something old, but because theirs is new it’s better, usually because of why it’s new. (Blank but in Rust, Blank but in Go, blank but in JavaScript…)
In my own experience, this was demonstrated most starkly by how suddenly Subversion became “terrible” when everyone decided to switch to git, while many of the same people considered it great when they were switching to Subversion from CVS. And the same for the SCCS+clones to CVS transition.
Back in 2016 I briefly worked at a old, large corporation that was still using CVS.
During that time management decided that company policy was now to be hip with the younger generation. One very senior manager actually used the expression "we must strive to be the Uber of [our industry]"
This also led to a mandate that we should switch to Git because it was new and shiny.
You can just imagine the how steep the learning curve was for all the old hands, especially as some of them joined the company in the previous century as COBOL programmers.
We were also pulled in to team building sessions where we were encouraged to "think outside of the box" and be "innovative". During one of those sessions I suggested that "you know, we should just use SVN instead" and was promptly shot down.
I don't hate git, but I do like subversion more. That said, I completely understand why someone would hate git.
Oh, boy. That's a very bright signal to run, don't walk, away from that company.
You can determine who something is for by looking at who is paying for it. This one is provided to us for free and without any obvious source of third-party revenue (e.g. advertising), so, like HN comments, it is no doubt for the author.