▲ | leo_researchly a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
hi pella, thanks for your comment, especially "the reason behind the status is key." We built the radar primarily to have a data-driven reasoning behind it. I have explained our approach in more detail here: https://blog.tryresearchly.com/articles/built-own-technology... Here is the summary: We score each technology across three dimensions: market adoption (how many big companies are really using it and seeing results), relative impact (on our bottom line), associated risks, and internal prios. For each dimension we have a scorecard along the lines of: if five top 100 startups are using it publicly it gets 3 points of market adoption. The scorecard is far from perfect, but it gives us a good, repeatable algorithm across time and trend. In the case of GPT-Codex: it is on hold because the perceived relative impact for us is low (we already have a good setup with alternative tools; bolt + cursor). In the above-article I have also linked to our Google Sheet. It contains the scores (some redacted) including the underlying data. Also if you klick on some of the trends (e. g. GEO) it links to our written-out rationale (e. g. https://blog.tryresearchly.com/articles/wie-wir-uns-auf-geo-...) Thanks for the Oreilly radar. Didn't know this one. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | pella a day ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> In the case of GPT-Codex: it is on hold because the perceived relative impact for us is low Interesting ... so for you "Hold" ~= "low impact / monitor ", while ThoughtWorks use "Hold" more like "don't start anything new" ( https://www.thoughtworks.com/en-us/insights/blog/technology-... ) [1]. Personally, I've started to read "Hold" in their sense - basically as "not recommended" for new work. that’s why I first thought "GPT-Codex" (one of my favorite models) was already "not recommended." :-) [1]
Thanks for the links - makes much more sense now!EDIT: Zalando definition ( https://opensource.zalando.com/tech-radar/ )
| |||||||||||||||||
|