indeed

Yeah also true, you’re generally not gonna start doing anything if you know you’re getting interrupted anyways.

kebab case for the win xml-http-request

In some cases it is just a net negative, especially if you have a bunch of services are using the same db tables which act as the global state.

In a lot of cases microservices will add to your development problems.

lol no idea

a classic

💯

it’s amazing what people will put up with as long as the job is steady and predictable

I use fell over to mean crashed all the time

🤣

unless it’s been a decade since 2019 :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SwiftUI

Do tell how you do end to end testing without running services locally.

the sad reality

I very much agree with designing things in style of microservices in terms of having isolated components that can be reasoned about independently. In my experience, this is the only way to keep large projects manageable. Incidentally, this is also why I’ve come to appreciate functional approach with immutability as the default. It makes it much easier to write largely stateless code where all the IO happens at the edges, and then you just pass your context around explicitly through pure functions.

Nowhere did I say you shouldn’t have a staging environment. However, if you can develop and test changes locally then by the time it goes to staging, the code should already be in good shape most of the time. Staging is like your guardrail, it shouldn’t be part of your main dev loop.

Meanwhile, not sure what the issue is with running a monolith locally. The reality is that even large applications aren’t actually that big in absolute terms. Having to run a bunch of services locally to test things end to end is certainly not any easier either.

don’t know, but it is a nice font now that you mention it

If you have to deploy your service to test features instead of being able to test them locally while developing them then you have a really poor dev workflow.

The main problem with microservice architecture is around orchestration. People tend to downplay the complexity involved in making sure all the services are running and talking to each other. On top of that, you have a lot of overhead in having to make endpoints and client calls along with all the security concerns where it would just be a simple function call otherwise. Finally, services often end up talking to the same database, and then you just end up with your shared state in the db which largely defeats the point.

This approach has some benefits to it. You can write different services in different languages. Different teams can be responsible for maintaining each service. The scope of the code can be kept contained reducing mental overhead. However, that has to be weighed against the downsides as well. At the end of the day, whether this is the right architecture really depends on the problem being solved, and the team solving it.

I’ve worked on projects where microservices resulted in a complete disaster and that ended up being rewritten as monoliths, and ones where splitting things up worked fairly well.

What I’ve found works best is having services that encapsulate some particular functionality that’s context free. For example, a service that can generate PDFs for reports that can be reused by a bunch of apps that can send it some Markdown and get a PDF back. Having a service bus of such services gives you a bunch of reusable components, and since they don’t have any business logic in them, you don’t have to touch them often. However, any code that deals with a particular business workflow is much better to keep all in one place.

The amount of human ingenuity that’s wasted on shit like figuring out how to make more intrusive ads, that could’ve instead been used to advance humanity is one of the biggest tragedies of capitalism.