31–40 of 124 posts
I think rewriting from scratch is the core of their problem and not really Cassandra. Gradually going over to Cassandra would have been a much better idea.
Unless Digg cannot roll out new features due to Cassandra (eg: a) Cassandra woes taking all dev team time, or b) tech limitations prevent features) it seems highly unlikely that cassandra is the reason why Digg 4 is grating with users initially. It's a change of features/product rather than technology that is the problem.
Like Joel Spolsky said it: "They followed the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make: They decided to rewrite everything from scratch" - http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html I think rewriting from scratch is the core of their problem and not really Cassandra. Gradually going over to Cassandra would have been a much better idea.
Like Joel Spolsky said it: "They followed the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make: They decided to rewrite everything from scratch" - http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html I think rewriting from scratch is the core of their problem and not really Cassandra. Gradually going over to Cassandra would have been a much better idea.
The other problem is they have been hyping V4 for a long time by making beta testing invite only and hard to get. It would have been better if they can have a public V4 beta running in parallel with V3 since it is a rewrite.
Implementing this should not be to hard and it allows them to get some feedback.
Is there any reason that Cassandra is the focus of this article? It is really silly and irresponsible to peg a nascent project like that without any reasoning or sources. I'm sure something changed besides just a Cassandra rollout, and wasn't Digg using it on v3 too? I think Cassandra is pretty well tested. There have been lots of super-large-scale deployments. It just seems lame to blame it on that, but I guess mayb…
as far as I remember: yes they were using it on v3 too, for some things
original blog post: http://about.digg.com/blog/looking-future-cassandra
Treads on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=813528
Earlier quoted context omitted.
your post implies digg isn't a startup.
Digg isn't a startup. It started in 2004 and has been mature for about 5 years. They are a business now. And a big one at that.
Is there any reason that Cassandra is the focus of this article? It is really silly and irresponsible to peg a nascent project like that without any reasoning or sources. I'm sure something changed besides just a Cassandra rollout, and wasn't Digg using it on v3 too? I think Cassandra is pretty well tested. There have been lots of super-large-scale deployments. It just seems lame to blame it on that, but I guess mayb…
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/07/kevin-rose-responds-to-digg...
I have to say I like the new Digg. Sad this guy is getting his career stomped on over it. Lot of people complain that the new site lets big sites submit their own content automatically, but how was it any different with a middle-man user submitting it himself?
The real problem is that v4 removed the illusion that average users had an influence on the rankings, without altering the fact that they don't.