I always end up looking like an asshole because even though I'm a high technology guy I'm also always saying "hey, calm down, this looks like it's lot more complicated than the ad and the staged demo make it look"
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
14 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
42 readers
1 users here now
Computers, phones, AI, whatever
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I always try to ask what problem is being solved.
Is it having a universal parser? Actually xml kind of did solve that problem. You could easily exchange data without having to write a parser and as long as the data was mostly text, it was fine.
But that's all it solved. It made it so you didn't have to write a new parser. You still had to figure out on a schema to serialize and deserialize though. And you needed to parse non-scalars.
I enjoy this article and it hurt a little to read. Tha part about RabbitMQ especially hurt. This has been my life for a while. Give me our monolithic software any day.
You do need a message queue sometimes. Though I've often found that just inserting into a table works well enough if you plan your indexes right.
My view on it is that companies build cargo ships when most just need a normal boat. For the particular orchestration I am thinking of, it scales to massive use with billions of transactions. The problem is, the idle infrastructure is so big and the bulk of deployments don't need that potential. I agree with you. For much of what I have done for myself I have learned to love sqlite3. I love the simplicity of one process and one file.
The projects I'm working with are big enough to rule out one process/one file, but I agree. Part of all of this is why things like Heroku, Google App Engine, and fly.io all appeal to me (especially the early Guido-era App Engine). They had all this infrastructure, but using it was no more complex than just using a normal project.
Right now at work I'm banging my head against SQS.