Thoughtworks Tech Radar

Thoughtworks Tech Radar

Thoughtworks Tech Radar

Thoughtworks Tech Radar

Thoughtworks Tech Radar. The first exhibit in this category is Windows Phone. We put him on Asses in 2012. We have some Thought Workers who are very enthusiastic about Windows Phone; one even talked about accidentally throwing his iPhone into the fountain to replace it with a Windows Phone.

Needless to say, this does not reflect what people think of Windows Phone. We expect the sample set to be too small for this blip. Yes, we can feel better by saying, “But that’s just an estimate,” but I have to call it Miss, though not everyone agrees.

The second error, which is more serious, also reflects a blind spot in the group. We incorporated Experience Design into Assess in 2012. Needless to say, we quickly heard from our own designer community that we were really missing the mark.

We have placed all aspects of software delivery and product development on Asses, as if there should be any question of the usefulness of these disciplines for the delivery of products and services that serve the needs of target customers. After this embarrassment, we started turning more broadly to our colleagues from Thoughtworks, rather than just talking to developers.

Further errors fall into the category of good intentions. In 2010, we included iterative data warehouses in evaluation and moved them to trials in 2011. We know that traditional approaches to data warehouses are not working.

We hope that a more iterative approach to data warehouses will solve this problem. This may be a step in the right direction, but in reality the way we use data to make business decisions and research has gone in a completely different direction.

Part of this change in direction is the result of rising clouds; in part due to the large increase in the volume and diversity of data. However, while we have high hopes for increasing the success of these projects, more fundamental changes are needed. We finally got there, but it took some time.

Another good intention that turned out to be wrong was our decision to include Java End of Life in Assess in 2010 and leave it until 2011. Oracle recently acquired Sun and Java Assets and decided to delay the release of the next version until it was ready and it took a long time.

We put the Java End of Life in Evaluation because we feel that organizations with significant investments in the Java ecosystem at least need to think about what the migration path might look like. At the same time, C# introduced new features and was ahead of Java for some time.

Obviously we were wrong too. The Java release has restarted, restoring public confidence in the viability of Java and the JVM. It’s hard to call a mistake, because what we knew at the time was a risk. However, in the end we were wrong, because Java and the JVM are still important players.

The final entry in our directory of biggest errors is Polyglot programming. Don’t get me wrong – I’m a big fan of using proper language for work. I don’t think there is one language that sets everyone up that is more suitable for all applications.

However, in our quest to provide more flexibility in language selection, we didn’t warn organizations enough about how easy it is to mix up too many languages. While one language may not be enough, and certainly no single language-only organization considering CSS, JavaScript, shell scripting, etc., we are starting to see organizations becoming too many.

This option is similar to many other options; too easy to choose too much or too little. Finding the right combination of languages is both an art and a science, and the right combinations differ greatly even between teams, not to mention different organizations. We should provide more instructions on how to find the best place, although, like many questions, this is definitely one of those “Depends…” situations.

So you have. During the first 10 years of Radar’s existence, we did a lot of things right, but we made a lot of mistakes. Along the way, we learned a lot about technology adoption and witnessed, along with all of you in the industry, the various technologies we need to know about.

I can’t guarantee we won’t make another mistake, but I hope it will be one again. I would say that in the future we will continue to produce radars twice a year, despite things like the global pandemic that make it impossible for us to manufacture radars personally. Here are 10 years of Thoughtworks technology radar.