4 ms·

You are comparing apples to oranges (in my opinion of course). I would say it's often hardly about just "operating" the machine. You need to know how the machin

You are comparing apples to oranges (in my opinion of course). I would say it's often hardly about just "operating" the machine. You need to know how the machine works how it can affect other machines and what can you do if parts of the machine break. Not only that but also how many operators you can find, how many additional modules (libs) are there and how often you need to oil the wheels. Sure the implementation of the known algorithms will be similar in Java and C++ but the overall usage and how it connects with everything (aka the workflow) will be very different.

dozzie 9y ago
> I would say it's often hardly about just "operating" the machine. You need to know how the machine works how it can affect other machines and what can you do if parts of the machine break. So, in terms from programming analogy, you need how your runtime operates, how it can affect neighbour processes/services, and what can you do when the runtime breaks down. This still does not affect how you structure your code (at least usually, when you don't work closely with the OS, which I bet is majority of code in the wild). > Not only that but also how many operators you can find, how many additional modules (libs) are there and how often you need to oil the wheels. How does workforce availability affect the way you work with your system? How does availability of libraries affect the way you work with your system, apart from amount of code for you to write (libraries have to come from somewhere)? The architecture and strategies stay exactly the same. With this regard, there's very little difference between CFEngine, Puppet, and Chef. > Sure the implementation of the known algorithms will be similar in Java and C++ but the overall usage and how it connects with everything (aka the workflow) will be very different. It will hardly affect how you think about the system and how you approach it. It will only affect where you get your code from. Unless you think about yourself as a guy who only puts together different libraries/modules and never ever writes own code, then of course it's a new paradigm, but I don't think you had this scenario in mind.
- holydude 9y ago
  > So, in terms from programming analogy, you need how your runtime operates, how it can affect neighbour processes/services, and what can you do when the runtime breaks down. This still does not affect how you structure your code (at least usually, when you don't work closely with the OS, which I bet is majority of code in the wild). Working with CFEngine's "DSL" v2 was very different from using Puppet mainly due to its limitations and lack of features. This really affects the way you structure your code. There were / are many nuances in CFEngine that make it different from puppet. And this is also about availability and complexity that is what I meant.
  - dozzie 9y ago
    > Working with CFEngine's "DSL" v2 was very different from using Puppet mainly due to its limitations and lack of features. This really affects the way you structure your code. In this case it only affected where you put which part of the code, not how you managed your servers with the tool. Note that the analogy with programming languages is <how you manage servers> =~ <how you structure code>, not <how you structure code> =~ <how you structure code>, what you're trying to put into use here. For judging the approach, it's irrelevant whether you write a shell script or use somebody's Ruby plugin to detect mounted filesystems or something like that. It doesn't change fundamentally how you structure maintenance of your environment. > There were / are many nuances in CFEngine that make it different from puppet. Of course, starting with their languages' syntax. Though both use the same underlying ideas, even if they call them differently, and both operate in similar way. If you know how one works, it's a knowledge that's easy to transfer to the other.

dozzie 9y ago

> I would say it's often hardly about just "operating" the machine. You need to know how the machine works how it can affect other machines and what can you do if parts of the machine break. So, in terms from programming analogy, you need how your runtime operates, how it can affect neighbour processes/services, and what can you do when the runtime breaks down. This still does not affect how you structure your code (at least usually, when you don't work closely with the OS, which I bet is majority of code in the wild). > Not only that but also how many operators you can find, how many additional modules (libs) are there and how often you need to oil the wheels. How does workforce availability affect the way you work with your system? How does availability of libraries affect the way you work with your system, apart from amount of code for you to write (libraries have to come from somewhere)? The architecture and strategies stay exactly the same. With this regard, there's very little difference between CFEngine, Puppet, and Chef. > Sure the implementation of the known algorithms will be similar in Java and C++ but the overall usage and how it connects with everything (aka the workflow) will be very different. It will hardly affect how you think about the system and how you approach it. It will only affect where you get your code from. Unless you think about yourself as a guy who only puts together different libraries/modules and never ever writes own code, then of course it's a new paradigm, but I don't think you had this scenario in mind.

holydude 9y ago
> So, in terms from programming analogy, you need how your runtime operates, how it can affect neighbour processes/services, and what can you do when the runtime breaks down. This still does not affect how you structure your code (at least usually, when you don't work closely with the OS, which I bet is majority of code in the wild). Working with CFEngine's "DSL" v2 was very different from using Puppet mainly due to its limitations and lack of features. This really affects the way you structure your code. There were / are many nuances in CFEngine that make it different from puppet. And this is also about availability and complexity that is what I meant.
- dozzie 9y ago
  > Working with CFEngine's "DSL" v2 was very different from using Puppet mainly due to its limitations and lack of features. This really affects the way you structure your code. In this case it only affected where you put which part of the code, not how you managed your servers with the tool. Note that the analogy with programming languages is <how you manage servers> =~ <how you structure code>, not <how you structure code> =~ <how you structure code>, what you're trying to put into use here. For judging the approach, it's irrelevant whether you write a shell script or use somebody's Ruby plugin to detect mounted filesystems or something like that. It doesn't change fundamentally how you structure maintenance of your environment. > There were / are many nuances in CFEngine that make it different from puppet. Of course, starting with their languages' syntax. Though both use the same underlying ideas, even if they call them differently, and both operate in similar way. If you know how one works, it's a knowledge that's easy to transfer to the other.