To me, this is just to show how nerds are kind of hypocrites when it comes about looks vs substance. They want to believe they are not affected by marketing and focus on actual value, but it all goes down with a simple front page that doesn't state what they want to hear. Or, as in this case, decided to state something that didn't want to hear, because it would make them feel less of part of a elite.
The whole "Ninja" and "Rockstar" thing has become annoying, but only because everyone started using that as a symbol to indicate "programming skills", rendering the expression meaningless in the process. Thing is, Resig and the developers of jQuery are skilled. They have code to show. They have experience developing things with Javascript. Other people are using their code successfully. Those are the only things that really matter.
I don't care if they want to associate their product with "Rockstars" or "Squashed cockroaches stuffing a baked potato", as much as I don't care about the label in my clothing. And if you actually think that what you consume does not define what you are, you shouldn't either.
I don't think you quite get it. Many people who would like to use jQuery have to justify it to a client and/or manager first. That's not very easy to do if the they go to jquery.com and see such a silly and puerile display.
As a developer, I don't give a shit. If they want to put a collection of the world's smelliest cheeses on their front page, that's a-OK by me. But these marketing artifacts absolutely do matter to most of the business types making decisions out there that I have to answer to.
Who on earth has to justify a javascript framework to their boss? There's so much competition and, unlike in the C++ or Java world, there's no agreement about what's best. Even Microsoft and Google haven't hammered down "the solution". Many projects use 2-3 frameworks.
I've worked at (and am now working at) some pretty big companies, and I've never heard of such a practice moving over to web development. There is usually just a license audit and that's it. And if you're a consultant justifying your use of jquery to your client, you are doing it wrong. They don't care what you use, they care about what licenses you use and how it works when you're done.
I think the complaint itself is "puerile" and pretty darn shallow. The illustration may have been ugly and as one of the original people to have an official job title of "ruby on rails rock star" I'm kind of tired of the metaphor. But I'm not about to throw a giant multi-venue tantrum and poop on the jquery guy's fun.
I had to justify it to my boss and my fellow developers because everyone has their preference. Some want to use YUI, some want to use prorotype. In the end, the boss makes the decision and the availability of an MIT license comes into play, so he's going to the homepage either way and the last thing I want him to see is some cheesy rockstar shit for a framework that's going into a massive line of business SaaS application.
> Some want to use YUI, some want to use prorotype.
Well, the nice thing about jQuery is that it is not exclusive. But I'm really surprised that you haven't gone and talked to the other engineers on the project and come up with a unified plan. If the majority of people want to use prototype and you can't show them why they shouldn't, then you probably don't have a good argument against them.
You have to justify jQuery to other engineers, and then your boss's opinion becomes largely immaterial unless he's utterly terribly at his job.
> last thing I want him to see some cheesy rockstar shit for a framework that's going into a massive line of business SaaS application.
If you really do have to justify it to him...
The first thing you want him to see is an unbiased assessment of the library's features and capabilities (not the least of which is its ability to play nicely with other libraries). The second thing you want him to see is other engineers agreeing to use it. That way when he saw the last thing, the rockstar, his mind would probably already be made up.
You make it sound like you have 0 influence over the course of the project you're involved with. If a silly graphic has the power to derail your framework choice, you didn't do your homework in the first place.
I have to justify all major technical decisions, including choice of JS framework, to the project manager and a technical oversight committee at my company. I work for a mid-sized custom development/consulting firm. Not all of us have the luxury of setting our own rules.
This kind of hyperbole makes you look like an unmitigated jackass. Please stop, since I'm pretty sure you're not that bad.
The actual site design is great. It was one illustration.
Why exactly should a single image on the front site make or break your technical case? Have you considered that this might be an indication that your technical case was extremely weak? Or maybe that you're being hard on anyone who exhibits even an inkling of whimsy on their project?
Sheesh. Next you're going to say their association with Devo also hurts jQuery's case because your boss hated Devo.
This kind of hyperbole makes you look like an unmitigated jackass.
You're right. Sorry about the hyperbole.
Why exactly should a single image on the front site make or break your technical case? Have you considered that this might be an indication that your technical case was extremely weak?
I agree with you, of course, but I think you're underestimating how important appearances are to these middle-management types. Especially the ones at service-based companies. They will visit the website to research a tool that I want to use, and if it doesn't look professional, it will get rejected regardless of any technical argument I make. This is true for everyone, not just me.
You have a middle manager type who actually at least puts on airs of doing actual research in an attempt to at least fake an informed decision? Xanadu!
> And if you actually feel that what you consume does not define what you are, you shouldn't either.
But it does, whether you want it to or not. Everything you do shows glimpses of your personality, and your choice not to care about the "label" can reveal just as much about you as paying close attention to it.
I'm trying to show that nerds - the "tribe" that is so hung up on rationality and intellectual vanity - are responding emotionally to a marketing action, acting pretty much in the very same way that 14 year-olds would respond if Ambercrombie & Fitch decided to sell the same clothing they always sell, but decorating their stores with Goth skulls and neon lights.
Most people care about the label on their clothing, and for good reason. Certain brands advertise you as an idiot, and as "one of us" to a particular type of idiots.
"A decade ago it was cool to wear clothing with a company’s logo splashed all over it. Nike and Gap labels were proudly displayed as badges of honor. These days such clothing is considered laughable; now shoppers want clothes that look unique or vintage (although frequently that 'vintage' tee costs $40). But the underlying motivation remains the same; people are still expressing themselves by the clothes they buy. It doesn’t matter that instead of buying things from big corporations you buy free trade coffee, organic apples, and handmade Guatemalan rugs, you’re still basing your personal identity on your identity as a consumer. You are driven by the desire to consume something first before it is consumed by the masses. It’s the new millennium’s take on 'keeping up with the Jonses'. And it’s just as conformist as it was in the 50’s."
If that quote is true, why does every shirt at american eagle, pacific sunwear, and even the nike store have a company logo on it, usually as the shirt's main feature? I like non-company-logoed shirts simply because I think it's stupid to pay so much to be a company's billboard. At a lot of popular stores, it can be quite hard to find such clothes.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I just disagree that such fashion is "laughable", at least according to popular opinion. I also disagree that an attempt to wear unlabeled clothes is part of another conformist consumer movement (an indie backlash).
As for your second question, I've bought a few (unlabeled) shirts that I really like from Old Navy and yes, even Target and Wal-Mart.
I used to work for a corporation whose only concern was with image. They were much happier to pay thousands of dollars to terrible software vendors simply because the vendors projected themselves as corporate-friendly "professionals" with "enterprise-ready solutions". I had an extremely hard time justifying using software written by Zed Shaw for obvious reasons. "It's all about the image," said a co-worker to me, "how long have you worked here and you haven't figured that out yet?"
I hope I never have to work at a place like that again.
The bigger problem lies in the artificial culture of "professionalism" that permeates so many workplaces to the detriment of things with real substance to them.
That being said, I think the jQuery people are wise to listen to the community about things like this.
I'm curious where this meme is heading. First it was ninja, then a rockstar, then what? Be a Q Quarterback! Looking for ActionScript Astronauts and C Cosmonauts! We need Ocaml Olympians and Tcl Titans!!!
I had a phone interview a few days ago where the other person used a line like "we're looking for ninja developers". I mean, its silly when you see it written, and its 100x more so when someone says it out loud.
Now all the whiners should be asked to wear three-piece suits and bow ties to work because their stained jeans and t-shirts aren't liked by the bosses who work three thousand miles away and will probably never even set eyes on them.
This is some terrible inside joke I'm totally not getting. I went to the site yesterday, and it totally looks the same as it did today. What exactly was the easter egg?
For the easter egg, go to the jQuery homepage and type in the Konami Code (up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, b, a). Pretty awesome... I love easter eggs.
The whole "Ninja" and "Rockstar" thing has become annoying, but only because everyone started using that as a symbol to indicate "programming skills", rendering the expression meaningless in the process. Thing is, Resig and the developers of jQuery are skilled. They have code to show. They have experience developing things with Javascript. Other people are using their code successfully. Those are the only things that really matter.
I don't care if they want to associate their product with "Rockstars" or "Squashed cockroaches stuffing a baked potato", as much as I don't care about the label in my clothing. And if you actually think that what you consume does not define what you are, you shouldn't either.