Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A bit of both. The reinvention is partly very similar to business books, each of them saying the same things, but with a different spin... and not mentioning the others nor their similarities. For software, the rapid creative destructionism of hardware - disruptive innovations - creates opportunities for the next methodology to get a foothold.

On the other hand, just as different branches of engineering (chemical, mechanical, civil etc - and their sub-branches) need different methodologies because the issues are different, a disruptive innovation in effect often creates a new branch of engineering, that changes the issues, so that, a different methodology really is appropriate. My thesis would be more compelling if I could think of some examples.

But here's an observation: if methodology really mattered, wouldn't the firms that followed one of them triumph over everyone else? But that doesn't seem to happen. It's not because methodology is unimportant, but that it is unimportant relative to marketing and technical innovation. In "real" engineering, most of that has settled down as they mature, and methodology rises in relative importance. [Just my thoughts]

EDIT I think the above count as some of the impediments mentioned by stcredzero.



So your take is just that things change so fast, it creates chaos.


Strikes me as an inaccurate exaggeration, but something like that. More like building on a fault-line or flood-plain.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: