331–340 of 408 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
news flash: You are working in exactly the same place.. it is just 5 years later :-) All that outdated technology you mention, was probably introduced as the newest-cant-live-without at some earlier time.
So how old does the tech need to be?
It's easy to just mark XML off as one of the many fads in tech given how many there are. But I think it's much more worthwile to dive into the particulars of why it failed. While they're all fads, some of them share commonalities that, in hindsight, I think we can say were major catylsts to their downfall. With XML, it failed because something like JSON was much simpler. Time and time again I see people saying that j…
IMO XML failed because of mismatch between programming language structures and storage format. JSON is perfect because it maps 1:1 to arrays and objects. XML does not. There were whole ORM projects to map XML to data structures. That's a fundamental issue and replacing XML was not that hard. My prediction is that SQL will fail too. There are infinite attempts to dethrone it. And the reason is the same: tabular data d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here’s another perspective: A decade ago you could deploy an internal PHP app to a box and forget about it for a few years, then fix a minor bug by sshing in, viming a file, and hacking it a few times. These days, if you leave the app untouched for six months that 10 minute fix becomes 2 hours of fixing a broken docker build. :)
>then fix a minor bug by sshing in, viming a file, and hacking it a few times. Yeah, screw version control! Who needs any record of the change you made? If you have to move the code or redeploy it somewhere because that server goes down or something else changes, _real_ 10x rockstar ninjas remember every change they've made for the last several years.
Fashion has cycles!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
news flash: You are working in exactly the same place.. it is just 5 years later :-) All that outdated technology you mention, was probably introduced as the newest-cant-live-without at some earlier time.
So how old does the tech need to be?
The better understood, both in capability and limitation.
The better chance no new updates will break it.
The better chance no new updates.
The better you get to know it.
The better you get to integrate it.
The better the chance it will be there tomorrow too.
The better the investment learning it becomes.
I've been working in the tech industry in the US for about 5 years. Ever since I knew myself I've been coding. From middle school to high school, given any problem, like Sudoku, or keeping up daily chores, my solution was Programming! Programming wasy homebase. Then I studied it in uni, thought I was kinda good at it, and loved it. But when I started working in the industry, I realized that it's absolutely exhausting…
Yeah, you can't jump on every hype. I started in web dev almost 20 years ago (did some Visual C++ before that). First job was everything XML. We had our open source CMS that stored all documents as XML and used XSLT to transform it into the HTML we needed. Was pretty cool, but there's always something that didn't fit that paradigm. Some coworkers went a bit overboard and used XSLT to generate the XSLT to create the H…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an adequate philosophy for like.. a CRUD app, some freemium SaaS, social media, etc. Stuff with millions of users and billions of sessions, etc. However there are industries applying these lessons in HPC / data analytics / things that touch money live .. operating on scales of users in the 10s to maybe 100s. So stuff where downtime is far more costly both in dollars and reputation. I'm also intrigued by the c…
> I'm also intrigued by the constant cloud refrain of "stuff crashes all the time so just expect it to" coming from a background where I have apps that run without crash for 6 months at a time, or essentially until the next release. IMHO, those aren't mutually exclusive. Your app code should be robust enough to run 6+ months at at time, and the "stuff crashes all the time so just expect it to" attitude should be rese…
I worked a decade in public sector digitalisation in Denmark, where for some reason they still use a lot of SOAP and thus XML. I’m not so against XML in theory, but I hate it in practice. You’d have these completely over engineered solutions where you’d basically need to call a separate micro services for every “field” of anything. So if you wanted a name, a ssn, and, an address for a citizen you’d need to make sever…
Not in Denmark only. In some projects across the EU I only saw XML/SOAP used for the so called API access. I really do not understand the XML fetish still going on in 2020+.
[1]: https://pretextbook.org/doc/guide/html/part-author.html
It's easy to just mark XML off as one of the many fads in tech given how many there are. But I think it's much more worthwile to dive into the particulars of why it failed. While they're all fads, some of them share commonalities that, in hindsight, I think we can say were major catylsts to their downfall. With XML, it failed because something like JSON was much simpler. Time and time again I see people saying that j…
IMO XML failed because of mismatch between programming language structures and storage format. JSON is perfect because it maps 1:1 to arrays and objects. XML does not. There were whole ORM projects to map XML to data structures. That's a fundamental issue and replacing XML was not that hard. My prediction is that SQL will fail too. There are infinite attempts to dethrone it. And the reason is the same: tabular data d…
The whole point of SQL is that relations and relational data are not data structures. They are higher level concepts and data structures are implementation details. The reason it has survived 4+ decades is because it isn't intrinsically tied to those implementation details and instead can be reimplemented over and over and over.
> There are infinite attempts to dethrone it.
Viewed another way, there are infinite attempts to reinvent it, all of which keep failing, because they aren't as good.