About these papers

I am one of those people who choose to publish their ideas on a blog. 

The practical reason behind doing this is so that in a conversation I can refer my interlocutor to a text which elucidates my points better than I could conversationally. Admittedly, the opportunity to do this does not arise as often as I wish it did, and even when it does happen, about half the time the interlocutor appears to be reluctant to go and actually read the post, so let's just say that I publish my ideas mainly because I like doing it.

There is an old quote which says: It is better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. (Quote Investigator.) When you publish your ideas, you are making them available for scrutiny, so you are running the danger that the tiniest mistake will be discovered, (or that the slightest semantic disparity will cause something to be interpreted as a mistake,) and thus negative opinion will be formed about your person. Furthermore, the negative opinion will be formed in your absence, so you will not be given the opportunity to discuss it and defend yourself.  

Most people do not write about their ideas, so they do not run any risks. I deliberately choose to run the risks, because for a person who a) has ideas b) is capable of writing about them and c) likes writing, to not write them lest he be thought of as a fool would be cowardice. So, I have no option but to write.

Unpopular ideas greatly exacerbate the problem. Many of my ideas go against established practices, but statistically, most readers are likely to be following established practices, so they might find the content of this blog disagreeable. The opposite of this would be re-iterating known facts and established practices: some people like writing for the benefit of those who might be unaware of what the facts are, or what the established practices are; I guess there is some usefulness in this, but for me an idea is worth writing about if it is original, or at least not widely known by the target audience, and ideally it should contain an element of dissent, i.e. showing how a widely popular established practice or understanding is wrong, and how we can do or think better. (*1) Most ideas of that kind are at least a bit blasphemous to at least a sizable portion of the population.

I am an engineer who is passionate about his engineering discipline and about finding ways of advancing it. Now, engineering tends to advance by trying new things, not by re-iterating old things. New Things decidedly means Not the old things. Plus, if you are trying to make an omelet, then some eggs will necessarily be broken.

It goes without saying that everything I write falls under the category of Strong opinions, weakly held. (Coding Horror.) Everything I write on this blog is subject to revision in light of new evidence. If you find a mistake in something I have written, please point it out to me, and if you disagree with some opinion I have expressed here, then please either debate it with me, or let us agree to disagree.


(*1) For example, even though the term "microservice" does not have a single clear definition, there is a broad common understanding within the industry as to what a microservice roughly is; so, if one was to judge by the title of one of my posts, So, what is a Microservice, anyway? they might be tempted to believe that it just recaps the industry's broad understanding, while in fact what the article does is to show that the industry's broad understanding is largely wrong.

No comments:

Post a Comment