4 ms·
I suppose this article is about programming rather than software engineering but at the same time, I find there are a lot of these articles with heavy emphasis
by poulsbohemian 8y ago
I suppose this article is about programming rather than software engineering but at the same time, I find there are a lot of these articles with heavy emphasis on code. I'd much rather people who want to improve their abilities keep an eye on architecture, and I thought the article yesterday about Uber's reasoning for moving to MySql had some gems in the comments, like this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12166585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12166585. The code is often secondary to the architectural choices. Get the architecture right, and the language or the quality of the code is frankly, a secondary concern.
- maerF0x0 8y ago> and I thought the article yesterday Link?
- poulsbohemian 8y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17279687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17279687. Or I guess rather I should say the article posted yesterday had excellent commentary in 2016 and 2013 ;-). The money quote was " And in this particular case, I'd say they shouldn't be using the database to do locking around sending a receipt. It should be put into a queue and that queue should be processed separately, which avoids the transaction problem altogether." For all the people who mock the GoF book or the idea of design patterns, that right there ^ is a pattern of software engineering that you can recognize and apply. It requires a layer of architectural thinking beyond just the code, but it is the kind of thinking that when I see it in people separates them as senior from not senior.
- sevensor 8y agoI think the problem with the GOF book is that too many people used its respectability for too long to justify terrible designs, in opposition to both common sense and the guidance in the book itself. This has tarnished the reputation of what otherwise might be a pretty useful book.