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

“It's The Future”

circleci.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 536 posts

Re: “It's The Future”

#361

Post by nzoschke »

nathan_f77 wrote: post #76

I've spun up a lot of kubernetes clusters to test it out. A few months ago I also tested out Flynn, Deis, Deis Workflow, Openstack, and a lot of other options. I still haven't found a simple bootstrap script that gets everything set up on AWS and lets me simply deploy my application. And it's true that storage still seems to be an unsolved problem with kubernetes. Heroku is great, and free for small services. On the…

Take a look at Convox for setting up AWS then getting out of the way. It's open source and free aside from the base AWS costs.

Disclaimer: I work at Convox.

Re: “It's The Future”

#362

Post by mbrock »

IshKebab wrote: post #325
mbrock wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, how do you write that in Python? I'm curious because these simple things that are delightfully easy in bash often turn out to be surprisingly tedious in other languages. Of course, some things are tedious in bash too. But a basic principle of shell scripting is that you call other programs to do the stuff you don't want to do in shell.

Like this: http://stackoverflow.com/a/1996540 I agree it is tedious, but to be honest, reading and writing to stdin/out isn't something that would commonly need to be done in a robust system. If the world were perfect you would use library functions. I definitely think there is scope for a language that works well as an interactive shell, and as a general purpose language. They have somewhat conflicting constraints b…

No stdout or stdin for robust systems? I disagree.

Yeah, a nicer shell-like language would be cool. I've been thinking about it for a while.

Bash is quirky but it gets a lot of stuff right and once you understand it it can be extremely ergonomic and productive.

And not depending on language run times other than shell can be really glorious in some situations, too...

Re: “It's The Future”

#363

Post by lj3 »

CaptSpify wrote: post #339
6DM wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a positive note, it sounds like proprosals to use newer technology are welcome. I keep seeing the opposite, "No this is too different, could break stuff."

IME that comes with: Sure, the new tool looks cool, but is it battle-tested? How many tools end up being relied on heavily while they're still in beta? And does it solve any of our current problems? or is it just neat? As a grumpy SA, I see way too many people try to push for new tools because they "seem cool", instead of "Do they solve a problem we have?"

It took me years to realize the reason programmers do this is because the tools that "seem cool" make their lives easier at the expense of everything else. This is where the popular traits of "laziness and hubris" become a liability instead of an asset.

More programmers need to embrace the suck.

Re: “It's The Future”

#364

Post by karma_vaccum123 »

DonHopkins wrote: post #116
tormeh wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not use Python instead? Shellscript is so... chaotic.

I pine for the days of yore when the Unix Philosophy was strong and pure, and every program did one thing well, and only one. Like the way the shell would fork off an "expr" sub-process to parse a mathematical expression to add two numbers, then write the result to a pipe via stdout, then terminate the process, clean up all its resources, and switch context back to the shell, which then read the serialized sum back i…

> I pine for the days of yore when the Unix Philosophy was strong and pure, and every program did one thing well, and only one.

Unless you are over fifty years old, you never experienced this.

Rob Pike said it best: "Those days are dead and gone and the eulogy was delivered by Perl."

Perl being a thing in 1995...

Re: “It's The Future”

#365

Post by tsunamifury »

jventura wrote: post #238
rajeshp1986 wrote: post #109

The article perfectly summarizes my frustration and sentiment. These days I hear these buzzwords all time. I work as a consultant for an enterprise product and most people whom I meet they somehow catch these buzzwords and blurt it out in front of everyone during meetings and discussions to either showoff that they know technology and things that are in the market these days(also latest iphone, apple news, tesla, spa…

Oh, I feel your pain! There's too much fashion going on in this industry, and the high salaries and the youth rediscovering the same concepts from 40 years ago doesn't help.. I mean, it's great to have this new tech and all, but when you're trying to build something to last some years, sometimes it's hard to filter the crap between all the buzzwords. It just reinforces the thought that smart people should just leave…

https://youtu.be/zut2NLMVL_k

"All my work will be obsolete by 2005" -Steve Jobs

If you aren't willing to accept that obselence is part of life, then you are either building something you aren't passionate about or confused about the cruelty of time.

Re: “It's The Future”

#366

Post by mbrock »

lmm wrote: post #338
mbrock wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I use shell it's often exactly because I want to construct pipelines of processes and FIFOs and do all the other things that shell does very well and has done well for decades. I'm likely to be using Python programs and other programs in those shell scripts. The beauty of shell is that it makes it so easy to compose programs written in different languages.

Shell does things well provided all the intermediate states are naturally expressible as streams of bytes. Otherwise not so much. I think the advantages of using a single language for everything outweigh the disadvantages - see e.g. http://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/java-for-everything... (though actually my single language is Scala)

Everything in a computer is a stream of bytes... My shell scripts often use tools like jq and jshon to deal with JSON structures, etc. File hierarchies can also be very pleasant data structures.

The kinds of scripts I write would be awkward to have as compiled JVM programs, I think. Shell is just way more ergonomic for me for many tasks.

Re: “It's The Future”

#367

Post by StavrosK »

mamcx wrote: post #321
rajeshp1986 wrote: post #109

The article perfectly summarizes my frustration and sentiment. These days I hear these buzzwords all time. I work as a consultant for an enterprise product and most people whom I meet they somehow catch these buzzwords and blurt it out in front of everyone during meetings and discussions to either showoff that they know technology and things that are in the market these days(also latest iphone, apple news, tesla, spa…

This is how we manage this problem at the times when Visual Basic was the king and we use instead Visual FoxPro. People want theirs apps to be made with Visual Studio (BTW, FoxPro was part of the package). So they ask: "In what is the app made"? "In Visual, Sir." Done. End of story (like most of the time, obviously some times people are more dangerous and press it ;) ). ---- The point is not focus in the exact word b…

You're exactly right. In the end, the customer is worried about solving their problem and they're asking if you're aware of . It's like when you go to the doctor and say "I've read of an experimental new treatment for X, can't we do that?". The doctor has probably already heard about it.

Re: “It's The Future”

#368

Post by mbrock »

lmm wrote: post #336
mbrock wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Maybe I'll make a public Gist that's a kind of "foo | bar" cookbook for different languages...

What you actually do in Python is use https://github.com/kennethreitz/envoy

That seems to recommend just calling the shell to do pipelines? Makes sense... Or maybe it parses that syntax itself?

Re: “It's The Future”

#369

Post by cableshaft »

mrweasel wrote: post #50
mrhektor wrote: post #31

"-No, look into microservices. It’s the future. It’s how we do everything now. You take your monolithic app and you split it into like 12 services. One for each job you do. That seems excessive" A 100 times yes. We tried to split our monolithic Rails app into micro-services built in Go. 2 years and many fires later, we decided to abandon the project. It was mostly because the monitoring and alerting were now split in…

>Any positive experiences with micro-services here? It makes sense for some thing. We run a webshop, but have a separate service that handles everything regarding payments. It has worked out really well, because it allows us to fiddle around with pretty much everything else and not worry about breaking the payment part. It helps that it's system where we can have just one test deployment and everyone just uses that d…

I don't think having a handful of services handling a specific, atomic section of the app really classifies as this 'micro-services' claim, it's just smart separation of concerns.

We have specific services that process different types of documents, or communicate and package data from different third parties, or process certain types of business rules, that multiple apps hook into, but it's literally like 20 services total for our department, some that are used in some apps and not others.

When I hear 'micro-services' I'm picturing something more akin to like node modules, where everything is broken up to the point where they do only one tiny thing and that's it. Like your payment service would be broken into 20 or 30 services.

But maybe I'm mistaken in my terms. I haven't done too much with containers professionally, so I'm not too hip with "the future".

Re: “It's The Future”

#370

Post by creshal »

corford wrote: post #266
creshal wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Python you simply don't have good SOAP libraries. They were all started at the tail end of its popularity and then all died quiet deaths when attention shifted to ReST before they were actually production ready, and if you now want to talk to a SOAP service… well, better don't do it in Python. 2, that is. Forget about 3.

Have you seen Zeep? It's literally billed as "A fast and modern Python SOAP client". Python 2 and 3 compatible. Last commit was two weeks ago. http://docs.python-zeep.org/en/master/

Nope. We needed one last September, zeep didn't yet exist back then.

And going by the bugtracker, it's running into quite a few problems with almost-but-not-quite compliant servers/WSDL files, which is a real issue when you're trying to interface ass-old legacy APIs (we're talking "not upgraded since 2006"-old) made by $BigEnterprise. Maybe this time the project won't die before they work out all the little kinks.

Post reply on HN