4 ms·

The path of least resistance should lead to quick and obvious failure rather than a false sense of security that the system is working. Careless development cre

by gdulli 10y ago

The path of least resistance should lead to quick and obvious failure rather than a false sense of security that the system is working. Careless development creates a price that has to be paid one way or another. You can't get something for nothing.

foldr 10y ago
That's a very good point. Unfortunately, it is not the meaning of "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" in any language that I know of.
- flooq 10y ago
  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
tormeh 10y ago
If you want your product to succeed it has to be easy to get to work. That means having insecure defaults etc. When a product is in production, people will go through hell to make it work a little better; when they're trying out a product they'll drop it at the slightest inconvenience.
- gdulli 10y ago
  > When a product is in production, people will go through hell to make it work a little better No they won't. https://www.linux.com/news/about-40000-mongodb-databases-found-open-online https://www.linux.com/news/about-40000-mongodb-databases-fou...
- pg314 10y ago
  Some people work that way. Other people do a more in-depth evaluation. The first group tends to end up with MySQL, the second with PostgreSQL. I'm painting with a broad brush here, there are situations where it might make more sense to use MySQL. It would be hard to argue that PostgreSQL is not successful. MySQL has a larger market share, but the PostgreSQL project is alive and thriving.
euyyn 10y ago
> You can't get something for nothing. If by that you mean that you can't have a developer tool whose "least-resistance" usage leads to anything other than failure (be quick and obvious, or hidden), I'm sorry that that's the nature of the tools you've found. I do think we can have nice things; it's why the level of abstraction of our tools keeps steadily rising over time.
- gdulli 10y ago
  I put effort into learning the tools I use that are as important as the place where I store all the data. So it's a moot point.
FunkSQL 10y ago
Wait, that's not what's happening. We're not talking about something that actually failed but appeared to work. We're talking about something that was maybe poorly used but still worked correctly. That can be genuinely beneficial.

by gdulli 10y ago

foldr 10y ago

That's a very good point. Unfortunately, it is not the meaning of "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" in any language that I know of.

flooq 10y ago
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

tormeh 10y ago

If you want your product to succeed it has to be easy to get to work. That means having insecure defaults etc. When a product is in production, people will go through hell to make it work a little better; when they're trying out a product they'll drop it at the slightest inconvenience.

gdulli 10y ago
> When a product is in production, people will go through hell to make it work a little better No they won't. https://www.linux.com/news/about-40000-mongodb-databases-found-open-online https://www.linux.com/news/about-40000-mongodb-databases-fou...
pg314 10y ago
Some people work that way. Other people do a more in-depth evaluation. The first group tends to end up with MySQL, the second with PostgreSQL. I'm painting with a broad brush here, there are situations where it might make more sense to use MySQL. It would be hard to argue that PostgreSQL is not successful. MySQL has a larger market share, but the PostgreSQL project is alive and thriving.

euyyn 10y ago

> You can't get something for nothing. If by that you mean that you can't have a developer tool whose "least-resistance" usage leads to anything other than failure (be quick and obvious, or hidden), I'm sorry that that's the nature of the tools you've found. I do think we can have nice things; it's why the level of abstraction of our tools keeps steadily rising over time.

gdulli 10y ago
I put effort into learning the tools I use that are as important as the place where I store all the data. So it's a moot point.

FunkSQL 10y ago

Wait, that's not what's happening. We're not talking about something that actually failed but appeared to work. We're talking about something that was maybe poorly used but still worked correctly. That can be genuinely beneficial.