This notion of 技术已经很成熟 (it is a mature technology? a well known technology? huh? I don't even know how to translate this line.) bothers me a LOT! What do you mean by that? There are loads questions to be clarified, don't you think!?
- that the technology has already been developed?
- that can be easily copied and re-implemented, with the same wonderful results?
- or has been in existence for a while and everybody in the room understands what it means, and what it takes!?
- Are we talking about the principle of this technology here? or a version of implementation?
- or some other customized idea based on it?
- and how do you know it works for you in your application context? Have you done a POC? and to what degree your POC was built and tested and proven to give you confidence? How far apart is your POC from what you envision of the real thing? How did you derive that conclusioin?
Really, whenever ppl use such a vain, vague, meaningless line as to set the theme of a discussion, it is nothing but a grand title that leads to nowhere and a unmistakened signal of wasting time on everybody involved on the thread, regardless the topic and actual fact. Truth told, the speaker or the writer just has zero clue of what the technology really means, how it works, how it is implemented, what quirks s/he has experienced and is aware of, how these quirks are going to impact what you are thinking to achieve with this technology... the list can go on and on and on.
The bottom line is, there isn't such a thing as mature technology. There is known implementation of it; there is successful case (and failure cases in that matter) of it; there is probably many many theories and diagrams about it developed from multiple dimensions of viewing angle so to have an interpretation of it; there is so called best practice (even this term has been completly abused in context of a technical discussion) of certain aspects of it derived from accrued experience by others who have treaded on this path before and attempted a few things here and there while one is easier/harder than another.
But the way people (bogus tech experts) commonly put this line forward, is really implying one huge assumption that this worked before, and I can find someone to replicate this result.
Really!? Should we then list some counter example just to make a point? Computer architecture. Since its birth, its architecture has always been: a compute unit (CPU), memory (for transitional data), storage (for data persistence), and data bus (for data transportation). Every single electronic device that we know of today follows this exact architecture (in its most general term). Yes it is a mature design and widely adopted, understood, practiced, and used. Yet, Intel can do it doesn't mean you can do it. If someone standing on a stage and starts saying "this is a mature technology, and I'm going build a computer of XYZ to make it the fastest or the most powerful of computer on earth", forget it ← no, it is a mature design, probably, but there are million dials to make it work, and having a architecture diagram at hand shows nothing of its possible implementation path and its pitfall. If you are the first time doing it, you will fail, 100% of the time. Like everything else in life, if you never practiced it before, your odds of striking gold on the first try is, and should be, zero.
So please, don't quote examples of Google whenever you talk about AI or the best technology company; don't quote Amazon whenever the topic is about e-commerce or supply chain; don't quote Alibaba or Tencent whenever it's about Chinese tech ruling the world... because, like a personal success story, the true capability of the company or the business contribute to less than 10% of what it achieved. It's the other 90% that has no theory, no diagram, no roadmap, no recipe, and impossible to replicate. Period. Besides, duplicating the exact growth path doesn't guarantee a 1-to-1 copy of their status to you, either.
Not to mention, technology, is really a particular mindset, a view of the world and a understanding of the issue, yours against mine. The difference is not in which tech stack to use. It's in the way we each build a logic, to do analysis, evaluation, and to battle trench wars of the old saying of devils being in the details, and to make decisions along the trial-and-error.
If you have done it yourself, speak with detail and concrete, especially, with fear and concern, with identification of risks and warning signs. If you don't know yourself but knowing somebody whom you think can create this thing, let him/her speak.
Just remember, the phrase mature technology is the first step in the wrong direction.
— by Feng Xia