Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building for the 99% Developers

future.a16z.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 310 posts

Re: Building for the 99% Developers

#21

Post by pcstl »

dham wrote: post #14
ctvo wrote: post #4

Who is trying to switch to GraphQL? Especially for service to service, internal calls?

Unfortunately a lot of companies right now. Although the smart ones have already done the switch and are now trying to switch off. I've seen a lot of suspect technologies in my career but GraphQL is definitely the worst

Out of sincere curiosity: Why do you think GraphQL is so bad?

I've been using GraphQL for a little while now and I've had nothing but good experiences (although my use case might not be the most common) so I'm interested in knowing what makes you think so poorly of it.

Re: Building for the 99% Developers

#22

Post by alberth »

bob1029 wrote: post #20
alberth wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s great to hear. Would you mind sharing how you implement/use 1 connection?

I would just think of it as 1 global static SQLiteConnection instance. There's really not a whole lot to it. Like 4 lines in a class file to set this up.

How do you implement this using a stateless stack (eg PHP)?

Re: Building for the 99% Developers

#23

Post by ehnto »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #16

IME most small software companies could be run off SQLite, a $5 linux VPS, vanilla JS, and a single line deploy script. (Pieter Levels seems like the master at this) I'd never bother suggesting it though: - no one likes being told they're small when they think they're big - it's bad for devs careers (Resume-Driven Development) - as TFA points out - it's not what FAANG are doing so I'd lack legitimacy

I agree, except as I am not in the VC rat race I am more than happy to suggest people keep it simple.

Re: Building for the 99% Developers

#24

Post by bgroat »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #16

IME most small software companies could be run off SQLite, a $5 linux VPS, vanilla JS, and a single line deploy script. (Pieter Levels seems like the master at this) I'd never bother suggesting it though: - no one likes being told they're small when they think they're big - it's bad for devs careers (Resume-Driven Development) - as TFA points out - it's not what FAANG are doing so I'd lack legitimacy

I'm literally running 5 sites and $40k MRR on a $5 linode

Re: Building for the 99% Developers

#25

Post by devoutsalsa »

bgroat wrote: post #24
LAC-Tech wrote: post #16

IME most small software companies could be run off SQLite, a $5 linux VPS, vanilla JS, and a single line deploy script. (Pieter Levels seems like the master at this) I'd never bother suggesting it though: - no one likes being told they're small when they think they're big - it's bad for devs careers (Resume-Driven Development) - as TFA points out - it's not what FAANG are doing so I'd lack legitimacy

I'm literally running 5 sites and $40k MRR on a $5 linode

I love hearing stuff like this. What are you using for your database(s)?

Re: Building for the 99% Developers

#26

Post by bgroat »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #25
bgroat wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm literally running 5 sites and $40k MRR on a $5 linode

I love hearing stuff like this. What are you using for your database(s)?

MySQL - just checked.

I would've sworn it was postgres. Just shows how much attention I pay to anything that isn't business logic

Re: Building for the 99% Developers

#27

Post by LAC-Tech »

ehnto wrote: post #23
LAC-Tech wrote: post #16

IME most small software companies could be run off SQLite, a $5 linux VPS, vanilla JS, and a single line deploy script. (Pieter Levels seems like the master at this) I'd never bother suggesting it though: - no one likes being told they're small when they think they're big - it's bad for devs careers (Resume-Driven Development) - as TFA points out - it's not what FAANG are doing so I'd lack legitimacy

I agree, except as I am not in the VC rat race I am more than happy to suggest people keep it simple.

Neither am I - but all my reasons still apply.

Try getting a job as a dev with vanilla JS and SQLite skills, as opposed to React and Microservice skills. What a business needs on a technical level doesn't matter when it comes to finding jobs.

Re: Building for the 99% Developers

#28

Post by sirspacey »

This article didn’t resonate with me as much as I was expecting.

While the insights on developer influencers was sharp, the article itself felt like more of a reaction than an evaluation.

I’ve worked in many legacy companies. The rationale for staying on the tech stack they have, and the approach they take to DevOps, is not particularly well reasoned. Often they are experiencing painful consequences due to their adherence to old design patterns.

I wanted each paragraph to be more diagnostic, frankly more reminiscent of the wide ranging and interesting debate we find here (especially when the old guard shows up and speaks with real authority and wisdom on how the problems they solve don’t map to Kubernetes, etc.).

I’d really welcome counter-arguments to the point I’m making, so I’ll frame it this way:

This felt like the same kind of “playing to the crowd” that dev influencers do, just a different crowd.

Re: Building for the 99% Developers

#29

Post by bcrosby95 »

amw-zero wrote: post #3
recursivedoubts wrote: post #2

Excellent article. Most people need to get some data from a database to a web page and back again, to paraphrase dhh (I think). This does not require a huge amount of architecture or infrastructure in most cases, even at scale. The engineering challenges should be elsewhere , not in this relatively simple and solved problem.

It’s a solved problem? The most difficult to navigate and extended codebase I ever saw was a medium-to-large sized Rails codebase.

Because Rails doesn't encourage modularization. It's fine at small sized codebases but eventually you want to "package by feature" (to borrow a Java term) rather than by layer.
Post reply on HN