4 ms·

> they have a code quality issue, and the tools are entirely justified in breaking under the load that's being put on them That's not one conclusion, it's two.

> they have a code quality issue, and the tools are entirely justified in breaking under the load that's being put on them That's not one conclusion, it's two. Suppose for the sake of argument we grant the first part and say Facebook has a code quality issue and they should have less code. (I'm not familiar enough with Facebook to have an opinion on the matter, but I'm willing to postulate this for the sake of argument.) That does not in any way imply the second conclusion! One of the most important differences between a good tool and a shoddy one is precisely that a shoddy tool can only withstand the load that should be put on it, whereas a good tool can go beyond that.

pdpi 10y ago
Sure, kind of. I agree: good tools should be able to handle being pushed beyond what counts as reasonable usage. But all tools break, at some point. Now we're splitting hairs: Is Facebook's use of the tools merely somewhat unreasonable, such that the tools should still hold? Or is it sufficiently past reasonability that they shouldn't have to hold any longer? To answer that, the fact that they managed to break not one but several tools is highly informative. I'm willing to accept that some tools might not work at scale. I'm less willing to accept that what basically amounts to the whole stack for mobile development is _that_ weak, not without very solid evidence. Near as I can tell, there haven't been reports of this sort of issue with MS Office for either Android or iOS, or from other applications that should, by any reasonable metric, be more complex than facebook.
- rwallace 10y ago
  > Is Facebook's use of the tools merely somewhat unreasonable, such that the tools should still hold? Or is it sufficiently past reasonability that they shouldn't have to hold any longer? A fair question. The most reliable way to answer it is to see whether there are similar tools that hold up better under load. For example, are there rival version control systems that scale better than Git? Ditto for the other tools. (Let's all watch out for the human tendency to interpret an affirmative answer as taking a side in e.g. a Git vs X competition. A more useful way to interpret it would be as a source of ideas on how to improve Git.)
derefr 10y ago
There's above-tolerance load, and then there's misapplication. A good tool might work beyond tolerance, but a great tool should "fail early" if it can tell it's clearly being misapplied. You don't want space-shuttle O-rings that fray under high tension; you want space-shuttle O-rings that fray under low tension, because they're never supposed to be under any tension and so incorrect installation that puts tension on them should result in them shredding apart before they ever get out of the factory.
- rwallace 10y ago
  Right. So if Git detects a SHA checksum failure, it should complain immediately instead of silently trying to muddle along, and so it does. But I don't think that's what was going on in this case?

pdpi 10y ago

Sure, kind of. I agree: good tools should be able to handle being pushed beyond what counts as reasonable usage. But all tools break, at some point. Now we're splitting hairs: Is Facebook's use of the tools merely somewhat unreasonable, such that the tools should still hold? Or is it sufficiently past reasonability that they shouldn't have to hold any longer? To answer that, the fact that they managed to break not one but several tools is highly informative. I'm willing to accept that some tools might not work at scale. I'm less willing to accept that what basically amounts to the whole stack for mobile development is _that_ weak, not without very solid evidence. Near as I can tell, there haven't been reports of this sort of issue with MS Office for either Android or iOS, or from other applications that should, by any reasonable metric, be more complex than facebook.

rwallace 10y ago
> Is Facebook's use of the tools merely somewhat unreasonable, such that the tools should still hold? Or is it sufficiently past reasonability that they shouldn't have to hold any longer? A fair question. The most reliable way to answer it is to see whether there are similar tools that hold up better under load. For example, are there rival version control systems that scale better than Git? Ditto for the other tools. (Let's all watch out for the human tendency to interpret an affirmative answer as taking a side in e.g. a Git vs X competition. A more useful way to interpret it would be as a source of ideas on how to improve Git.)

derefr 10y ago

There's above-tolerance load, and then there's misapplication. A good tool might work beyond tolerance, but a great tool should "fail early" if it can tell it's clearly being misapplied. You don't want space-shuttle O-rings that fray under high tension; you want space-shuttle O-rings that fray under low tension, because they're never supposed to be under any tension and so incorrect installation that puts tension on them should result in them shredding apart before they ever get out of the factory.

rwallace 10y ago
Right. So if Git detects a SHA checksum failure, it should complain immediately instead of silently trying to muddle along, and so it does. But I don't think that's what was going on in this case?