1970: "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Organizing your instructions in a clear way is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in function calls, machine optimization, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the compilers orthodoxy."
1980: "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Separating your code in functions that address single concerns is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in models, controllers, views, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the MVC orthodoxy."
2010: (and this one's verbatim) "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Using URLs instead of IDs in your json responses is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in HATEOAS, HAL, custom mime types, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the hypermedia orthodoxy."
I never could understand this attitude of overt antagonism towards people who care about architecture. If you aren't partial to such discussions yourself, at least show some respect for the people who, through years of wankerous discussion and debate, came up with and subsequently refined the pattern that propelled you to fame (or in the case of us mortals, at least gave us the tools to make our programming life a little easier). Now, I understand this particular guy is deeply invested in the MVC architecture. But that doesn't mean history stops here. REST (despite a long but somewhat underground history) and hypermedia are still in their infancy as an architecture. Many, many problems still remain unsolved and the process of debate meant to distill the good from the bad necessarily looks to outsiders as "wankery". Still, show some respect. The next person of Heinemeier's caliber will likely make their fame by bringing REST to the masses.
Not every new architectural idea is a good one. Lots fell by the wayside over the years. See J2EE or Naked Objects (I actually kinda liked that one). Bad ideas fail faster when criticism is brought forward which opens the floor to new, better ideas.
Constructive criticism, yes absolutely. Labelling things as wankery and reiterating that you don't see the point aren't. All they're showing is that you're missing the point.
I know, you've repeated that several times. "Without meaningful practical benefit" is what I'm referring to when I say you keep stating that you're missing the point. Just because you happen to not see the meaningful practical benefit doesn't mean there isn't one.
That is one of the most common young nerd mistakes. "If I don't see the value in something, the people doing it must be idiots!" Rather than, say, "... I must not understand something here."
I made it a ton as a youth. I had to have about a thousand, "Oh, now I see what they're talking about" moments before I learned to keep my mouth shut long enough to actually learn something.
Agreed, but there has to be some filter. You can't just say, "I don't see the value in crystal healing, I must not understand something here." Sometimes, you do understand enough.
Well, it depends on how you do it. My original reaction was, "duh, idiocy." But once I paid more attention, I learned a lot about the emotional motivations behind it, the placebo effect, and why western medicine is so unsatisfying to people.
That's helpful, in that you can convince anybody by saying: "Although I have no evidence, I'm sure that crystal healing is bullshit and I'm waaaay smarter than you." All they read from that is contempt and arrogance; that approach to skepticism is basically bullying.
I think a better approach is the one taken by my doctor. When people come in with concerns about vaccines, she first listens to their fears about kids and patiently explains why those particular fears might sound reasonable, but in this case are unwarranted. It's not really about the facts; it's about the hand-holding. For her, the interaction isn't about being right, but about persuading people.
So I agree, but for very high values of "understand enough". It's not enough for me to know that they're wrong; I want to understand why they're wrong sufficiently to have empathy for their situation.
So how do you know DHH doesn't meet that threshold? (I don't think it's clear either way, but still "most common young nerd mistakes" is pretty dismissive.)
He might, but he certainly hasn't demonstrated otherwise. In particular, he's not saying, "I see where the REST crowd is going, but their crucial mistake is X." That, combined with DHH's well-earned reputation for arrogance, makes me think he's just doing his usual.
If I were to buy into everything for which I see no practical benefit, 99% of what I buy into would be crap. By definition I can't tell the difference between snake oil and "stuff that is awesome, but I can't tell it's awesome." Therefore I reject everything for which I cannot see a practical benefit.
I should probably mention, before it's pointed out, that I mean REST is still in its infancy for web apps. It's more than proven itself as an excellent system architecture through the www.
Or the hatred of other languages and frameworks? JEE (or J2EE as it is called in the article was truly both bloated and difficult to configure before adopting the "convention over configuration" ideal. But it's a very pleasant way to develop applications now.
> Now, I understand this particular guy is deeply invested in the MVC architecture. But that doesn't mean history stops here.
DHH himself has said that Rails MVC is not classical MVC. I don't know if Rails was the first framework to use this particular definition of MVC, but drawing a line between 1980's MVC and Rails is tenuous at best. Making a historical argument on this basis just doesn't hold up.
1980: "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Separating your code in functions that address single concerns is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in models, controllers, views, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the MVC orthodoxy."
2010: (and this one's verbatim) "Another part of the necessary art of calling bullshit is to take down good ideas when they become inflated beyond what they can bear. Using URLs instead of IDs in your json responses is a reasonable idea that I support. But there's just not enough there there to dress it up in HATEOAS, HAL, custom mime types, and all the other -- here's that word again! -- wankery that passes for muster in the hypermedia orthodoxy."
I never could understand this attitude of overt antagonism towards people who care about architecture. If you aren't partial to such discussions yourself, at least show some respect for the people who, through years of wankerous discussion and debate, came up with and subsequently refined the pattern that propelled you to fame (or in the case of us mortals, at least gave us the tools to make our programming life a little easier). Now, I understand this particular guy is deeply invested in the MVC architecture. But that doesn't mean history stops here. REST (despite a long but somewhat underground history) and hypermedia are still in their infancy as an architecture. Many, many problems still remain unsolved and the process of debate meant to distill the good from the bad necessarily looks to outsiders as "wankery". Still, show some respect. The next person of Heinemeier's caliber will likely make their fame by bringing REST to the masses.