Granted, this is just a blog post, so the author isn't probably isn't actively trying to craft a faction amongst front end developers.
Granted, this is just a blog post, so the author isn't probably isn't actively trying to craft a faction amongst front end developers.
I feel I keep seeing an increasing number of blog posts that can be summarized as one of the following:
- Programming language X is dead/dumb/old/verbose, program in my own personal language Y.
- The [interpreter/compiler] for language Y is written in the source language, how "meta" is that?
- The library that will change the industry, and I just wrote it! <showcases a 5-10 line wrapper around a native language feature>
- I just invented this programming technique! <The technique has been in use since the early days of C>
Ultimately, I think it's the intention of those individuals to establish themselves in their selected niche -- and there's no problem with that, we all have to make a living. With social media and the associated disconnects, there seems to be a continuous drive to have one's voice/opinion be heard. In my own experience, I find the number of opinions floating around (either opposing or not) to simply increase the overall noise of the internet, especially those that assert their opinion on the reader. Consequently, this discourages me from sharing my own neutral insights on existing language features, technologies, or simply something new I learned.
On the note of establishing oneself, I believe the most effective method of doing so is the ability to showcase what one has accomplished, not just what one has said. Software development, companies, projects; the one purpose these three share in common is to solve the problems we're faced with. Whether that problem is solved with a game to satisfy one's boredom waiting at a bus stop, a usable ui design for booking flights, or writing a program that will take images of far off space bodies is beside the point -- the solutions we create will define our professional careers.
So yeah, I'm at least with you on finding this particular conversation useful and not at all wasteful drivel.
This reminds me of pg's "What you can't say" essay[2]. We may be able to identify areas we are wrong by evaluating the topics on which we are most unlikely to allow dissent.
If you want balance, you need to seek it out, both consciously asking people with measured responses what they mean and discounting people who hold extreme viewpoints.
It seems like very legitimate, high preforming, teams aren't really drawn to things like this. In some ways they're BFED and in some they're CFED.