This article is no better than what it criticises.
Passing a Jepsen test is great, but saying that you passed a Jepsen test is apparently some kind of hollow performance art, which has nothing to do with writing software?
They've been putting out high quality detailed information for years. It's not their fault if you attended a cinematic fluff piece.
> The other place I’ve seen tech evangelism is in Haskell, specifically the belief that strongly typed programs are a better way to build software.
Interesting, I'm newer to the field so I say I saw this more particularly with the rewrite in rust crowd, yes rust does have certain aspects better than cpp but does not mean every cpp project would benefit from a rust rewrite. Also is the claim on strongly type programs true? like is it better overall or just better given some specific points?
> It’s tech evangelism, and that scares the shit out of me.
I am sorry, but how is this new and why is this scary? The article doesn't make a case for this being genuinely scary.
The author may have a valid point or two, but at the end of the day, it's not that big of a deal. Everyone over promotes their products because it is in their interest to do so.
> Evangelism is considered harmful as an organizational technology.
This article is no better than what it criticises.
Passing a Jepsen test is great, but saying that you passed a Jepsen test is apparently some kind of hollow performance art, which has nothing to do with writing software?
They've been putting out high quality detailed information for years. It's not their fault if you attended a cinematic fluff piece.
> The other place I’ve seen tech evangelism is in Haskell, specifically the belief that strongly typed programs are a better way to build software.
Interesting, I'm newer to the field so I say I saw this more particularly with the rewrite in rust crowd, yes rust does have certain aspects better than cpp but does not mean every cpp project would benefit from a rust rewrite. Also is the claim on strongly type programs true? like is it better overall or just better given some specific points?
> It’s tech evangelism, and that scares the shit out of me.
I am sorry, but how is this new and why is this scary? The article doesn't make a case for this being genuinely scary.
The author may have a valid point or two, but at the end of the day, it's not that big of a deal. Everyone over promotes their products because it is in their interest to do so.
> Evangelism is considered harmful as an organizational technology.
Ok, I don't disagree there.
> Second, evangelism suppresses dissent
Good point.
But still, it's not a big deal.