5 ms·

I admit: I find the argument for "fat binaries"[1] over containers compelling. There's just one problem... ...let's say I'm working on an existing code base

by Lazare 9y ago

I admit: I find the argument for "fat binaries"[1] over containers compelling. There's just one problem... ...let's say I'm working on an existing code base that has been built in the old-style scripting paradigm using a scripting language like Ruby, PHP, or (god help us) node.js. Let's say we're well aware of the shortcomings are are looking for a migration path to move into the future. I can just about see how we can package up all our existing code into docker containers, sprinkle some magic orchestration all over the top, and ship that. I can also see, as per the article, an argument that we'd be much better off with fat binaries. But here's the thing: You can dockerise a PHP app. How am I meant to make a fat binary out of one? And if your answer is "rewrite your entire codebase in golang", then you clearly don't understand the question; we don't have the resources to do that, we wouldn't want to spend them on a big bang rewrite even if we did, and in any case, we don't really like golang. All of which makes this article seem oddly academic to me. There's a lot of value to something that can be layered on top of your existing solution for those of us who aren't starting greenfield projects. [1]: Also, while "fat binaries" is a great term, it's one that already exists and means something totally different.

danmaz74 9y ago
> built in the old-style scripting paradigm using a scripting language like Ruby, PHP, or (god help us) node.js I feel like I didn't get the memo... is the new-style we're all supposed to use microservices?
- Sevii 9y ago
  Microservices have won so hard that the fortune 500 are making it standard.
  - danmaz74 9y ago
    Any data about this?
- manigandham 9y ago
  No. Containers give you value regardless of the language or amount of "services" you use. Having an easy way to wrap and deploy, publish/download over HTTP, and use a simple API to run and keep running is new and valuable, hence all the popularity.
awirth 9y ago
But here's the thing: You can dockerise a PHP app. How am I meant to make a fat binary out of one? For years Facebook (reportedly) did this with hPHPc. Not a very good idea these days, but it's certainly within the realm of possibilities for large companies.
- hennsen 9y ago
  Yes, and we all know every shop in town has resources comparable to Facebook‘s...
  - tyingq 9y ago
    You can compile a statically linked PHP interpreter. Probably a bit of messing around with configure and makefiles, but doable.
    - jblow 9y ago
      More to the point, if this became the commonly-accepted sane way to do things, php would support it directly and it would be easy.
- stuartaxelowen 9y ago
  It seems you've misunderstood the problem.
- r0fls 9y ago
  I think the author's retort would be that PHP is one of these "outdated" languages like Python and Ruby. I tend to disagree, but overall enjoyed their opinion anyway. I came to criticize the article, but I think this comment already does that well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578147
perlgeek 9y ago
Even more, the "solution" to create static binary scales linearly with the number of technologies you use. If you create a tool to create a static binary out of your wordpress blog, but you have also Python, node.js, ruby and Perl running, you still lost. Containers offer a standard where you can deploy your applications in a language-independent way, so they avoid this scaling problem. The same is true for most OS-level packages (like rpm and deb), except that they provide much less isolation.

by Lazare 9y ago

danmaz74 9y ago

> built in the old-style scripting paradigm using a scripting language like Ruby, PHP, or (god help us) node.js I feel like I didn't get the memo... is the new-style we're all supposed to use microservices?

Sevii 9y ago
Microservices have won so hard that the fortune 500 are making it standard.
- danmaz74 9y ago
  Any data about this?
manigandham 9y ago
No. Containers give you value regardless of the language or amount of "services" you use. Having an easy way to wrap and deploy, publish/download over HTTP, and use a simple API to run and keep running is new and valuable, hence all the popularity.

awirth 9y ago

But here's the thing: You can dockerise a PHP app. How am I meant to make a fat binary out of one? For years Facebook (reportedly) did this with hPHPc. Not a very good idea these days, but it's certainly within the realm of possibilities for large companies.

hennsen 9y ago
Yes, and we all know every shop in town has resources comparable to Facebook‘s...
- tyingq 9y ago
  You can compile a statically linked PHP interpreter. Probably a bit of messing around with configure and makefiles, but doable.
  - jblow 9y ago
    More to the point, if this became the commonly-accepted sane way to do things, php would support it directly and it would be easy.
stuartaxelowen 9y ago
It seems you've misunderstood the problem.
r0fls 9y ago
I think the author's retort would be that PHP is one of these "outdated" languages like Python and Ruby. I tend to disagree, but overall enjoyed their opinion anyway. I came to criticize the article, but I think this comment already does that well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578147 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578147

perlgeek 9y ago

Even more, the "solution" to create static binary scales linearly with the number of technologies you use. If you create a tool to create a static binary out of your wordpress blog, but you have also Python, node.js, ruby and Perl running, you still lost. Containers offer a standard where you can deploy your applications in a language-independent way, so they avoid this scaling problem. The same is true for most OS-level packages (like rpm and deb), except that they provide much less isolation.