Etcd, or, why modern software makes me sad

Post by TheRealDunkirk » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:06 PM UTC

neurostimulant wrote: post #312

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty drastic to say "everyone here has imbibed" that Kool-Aid; I work in embedded, and am not super familiar with the frameworks he's complaining about, but I found the blog post entertaining nonetheless. Sometimes I feel like the people who are deep down in this "full stack developer" land should come up for air and look around at the bigger picture. There's a much bigger world of software development…

You should come join the fun! In order to deploy a web app in 2020, one must write his frontend using react and typescript that would transpile the code into a nicely bundled and minified javascript and css files along with thousands of your 3rd party dependency libs. Yes, you heard that right! I just counted the number of libs on the node_modules in one of my small side project and it's over 1000s. You might also wo…

Post by quicksilver03 » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:25 PM UTC

goatinaboat wrote: post #556

what-the-grump wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have that rant daily at this point. Dev A: I need an API to CRUD Me: But we've been doing CRUD for 30 years without an API this is a small project Dev A: But I don't know how, its not best practice, my team lead agrees, here is a medium article, get with the times, etc. Me: Ok so you don't know how to do your job. Dev B: Here, put the React SPA in a Docker container and run it on some cloud its easy... Me: But all…

Dev B: Here, put the React SPA in a Docker container and run it on some cloud its easy... I have 100 different devs telling me "do this thing, it's easy" and it's easy for them, but now I have 100 different things to think about and make work together and devs never think about how their tiny thing fits into the big picture. 99% of web apps could be pure HTML + CSS on the front end, and Flask or something on the back…

Post by dynamite-ready » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

cercatrova wrote: post #585

dynamite-ready wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have that with WASM. But then if that's an option, I think Typescript will be the last language I migrate to, because Typescript development culture, tending as it does towards overcomplicated solutions to simple problems, is unpalatable to me. I'm drawn to the idea of using Rust over WASM as a frontend language, and I think I'd rather choose that approach to develop any browser UI where type safety is critic…

Yes, it's probably a better idea to improve WASM than add a proprietary format (TS is by Microsoft) to the open browsers. Google tried to do the same thing with Dart and it was decried about a decade ago, so now they use it for Flutter.

Post by johnnyAghands » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:43 PM UTC

abernard1 wrote: post #446

lemmsjid wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I don't disagree, I was mainly pointing out that there isn't a black and white 'grpc = bad' argument. Especially since I believe grpc does take steps to mitigate some of the RPC issues you'd have with, say, Thrift. For example having the REST gateway so you can support the curl scenario without any extra work. (For example when building my own Thrift-type services I would do extra work to have a mini REST API fo…

> For example having the REST gateway so you can support the curl scenario without any extra work. I would agree with you except for one thing--it's very clear that's a second class citizen. There is this totally extra thing to support the original use case of etcd, and it comes with all the extraordinary quirks of how gRPC protobuf -> JSON serialization works (a strong term in my opinion). It is very very hard for m…

Post by mattkrause » Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 2:57 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #419

sfgweilr4f wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those constraints seem a lot more reasonable than what I've seen in other aspects of the business world. At least they are grounded in the realities of the actual purpose. Well, mostly anyway. I'll leave justifications for the $1000 left-handed hammers as an exercise for later. I've seen (and removed) plenty of requirements that were put in the specification just because . Because someone needed X amount of Y technol…

As I remember the actual story: The the hammer was waaaaay more than $1000. But that's because the military said "We'll pay you a total sum of X, but to make it easier to fund the project we'll let you break it into n parts and pay X/n per part". The contractor decided that to make their cashflow smoother, they'd include "manual impulse force generator" as one of the deliverable parts.