The future I want — the future I see — is one with tooling that's accessible to the greatest number of people (including designers), that can intelligently move work between server and client as appropriate, that lets us build experiences that compete with native on UX (yes, even for blogs!), and where upgrading part of a site to 'interactive' or from 'static' to 'dynamic' doesn't involve communication across disparate teams using different technologies. We can only get there by committing to the paradigm Tom critiques — the JavaScript-ish component framework server-rendered SPA. (Better names welcomed.)
I like this takeaway because it's heavy on acknowledging the process behind the technology which is often disparate and confusing. Even the most well-intentioned and organized dev team is going to get out of wack if succeeding with the tooling is experts only. We need to be able to achieve great performance, UX and accessibility even under conditions where designers do some work, devs pop in some hotfixes here and there, old devs leave with some of the knowledge, priorities change, etc.
// , “It is not so important to be serious as it is to be serious about the important things. The monkey wears an expression of seriousness... but the monkey is serious because he itches."(No/No)
I like this aspect of Mr. Harris' article, too. It's the first principle of the Tao of HashiCorp: Workflows, not Technologies.
The HashiCorp approach is to focus on the end goal and workflow, rather than the underlying technologies. Software and hardware will evolve and improve, and it is our goal to make adoption of new tooling simple, while still providing the most streamlined user experience possible. Product design starts with an envisioned workflow to achieve a set goal. We then identify existing tools that simplify the workflow. If a sufficient tool does not exist, we step in to build it. This leads to a fundamentally technology-agnostic view — we will use the best technology available to solve the problem. As technologies evolve and better tooling emerges, the ideal workflow is just updated to leverage those technologies. Technologies change, end goals stay the same.
And it's why Sacrificial Architecture appeases the dark ones.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I like this takeaway because it's heavy on acknowledging the process behind the technology which is often disparate and confusing. Even the most well-intentioned and organized dev team is going to get out of wack if succeeding with the tooling is experts only. We need to be able to achieve great performance, UX and accessibility even under conditions where designers do some work, devs pop in some hotfixes here and there, old devs leave with some of the knowledge, priorities change, etc.
I like this aspect of Mr. Harris' article, too. It's the first principle of the Tao of HashiCorp: Workflows, not Technologies.
And it's why Sacrificial Architecture appeases the dark ones.