alt Hacker NewsI'm sorry but it doesn't seem like you've actually read, or at least internalized, the article? These are direct quotes:
> The nice thing about boringness (so constrained) is that the capabilities of these things are well understood. But more importantly, their failure modes are well understood.
Well understood software directly coincides with support, rollout, and patterns.
I've read it a dozen times at least since it's been released. I don't think you're understanding my criticism. The payoff of the article is and has been that people say "choose boring technology", which is bad. The substance of the article is that "boring" is a valuable proxy word for things that may actually have value, which is a bad thing.
This article is bad. It has led to bad things. It has a bad premise. It has bad ideas.
The correct solution to the problem it wants to address is that engineers should justify technical solutions by mapping product level issues to technical solutions.
That's it.