4 ms·

> Databases designed today are mainly distributed and knowledge of design choices made by Postgres doesn't help there I've been working on distributed systems

> Databases designed today are mainly distributed and knowledge of design choices made by Postgres doesn't help there I've been working on distributed systems for 25+ years, and I still believe that understanding what happens within each node is important. You might be surprised how many of the real world's distributed databases are basically sharding over local databases written in C, and even the newer ones borrow many of the concepts. Would you rather study a mature query planner or an immature one? Both, really, but seeing how the mature one has developed over time is probably more instructive. And then there are kernels, filesystems, compilers, and other things you conveniently dropped from the comparison. > Assembler. LLVM IR. C or C++ with custom extensions. Whole families of languages for graphic cards. LLVM IR doesn't count, because there's no software to study that's written directly in it. The same is true of assembler. As for "X with custom extensions" you can't learn those without learning X itself so you haven't really made an argument against learning X. Also, very little software is written using those extensions so, again, there's no pedagogical value. > you can as well use more convenient language Missing the point again. The OP wasn't about what language to use for new development. It was about learning what is needed to study existing systems. > A lot of things the people teach when they teach C is ... largely useless for 99% Or maybe some of that 99% just don't know what they don't know, and that's the essence of Dunning-Krueger. People develop expertise in their own tiny sub-domain, then use simplified models for the rest ... but those other sub-domains aren't actually any simpler. Abstractions leak. While there is certainly a danger in drilling too deep or getting too wrapped up in details that end up not being relevant (or permanent), any programmer who treats "those other layers" as magic is going to be handicapped relative to a programmer who knows something about them. For example, knowledge I gained about cache-coherency algorithms very early in my career has come back to me again and again in contexts that were surprising to my colleagues who were never exposed to that stuff. They just thought it was magic, but it turned out to be magic that could be re-applied at a different layer for big wins.

fiedzia 8y ago
> You might be surprised how many of the real world's distributed databases are basically sharding over local databases written in C I probably would be, most of the ones I hear about or use aren't. When it comes to data storage, I work mainly with solr. Not only it doesn't have a line of C, if you were to study its domain there is no C equivalent. development and research is available in Java or Python, and nearest native competitors ... are also not written in C. > Would you rather study a mature query planner or an immature one? If I were a student, I'd rather study one that will give some idea of what people will design when I will enter job market, using tools they will use. > seeing how the mature one has developed over time is probably more instructive maybe, but is also less relevant for the needs of current database market and subject of research. > It was about learning what is needed to study existing systems. Existing systems are written in variety of languages and C, while still significant, does not constitute majority. Recently created systems are mostly written in something else. > Or maybe some of that 99% just don't know what they don't know, and that's the essence of Dunning-Krueger. Or maybe those who teach C stay in their bubble and missed the fact that other things not only exist, but also took over market and mind share. > any programmer who treats "those other layers" as magic is going to be handicapped relative to a programmer who knows something about them Only if those things have any relevance to their job. If you go 2 or 3 layers below, any relevance is lost and we keep adding those layers. > For example, knowledge I gained about cache-coherency algorithms very early in my career has come back to me again and again in contexts that were surprising to my colleagues who were never exposed to that stuff. They just thought it was magic, but it turned out to be magic that could be re-applied at a different layer for big wins. So you provided some cache-coherency implementation and now they can use it without knowing how it is implemented, right? And spent their time on improving their product having the cache coherency as given? As it was magic?

fiedzia 8y ago

> You might be surprised how many of the real world's distributed databases are basically sharding over local databases written in C I probably would be, most of the ones I hear about or use aren't. When it comes to data storage, I work mainly with solr. Not only it doesn't have a line of C, if you were to study its domain there is no C equivalent. development and research is available in Java or Python, and nearest native competitors ... are also not written in C. > Would you rather study a mature query planner or an immature one? If I were a student, I'd rather study one that will give some idea of what people will design when I will enter job market, using tools they will use. > seeing how the mature one has developed over time is probably more instructive maybe, but is also less relevant for the needs of current database market and subject of research. > It was about learning what is needed to study existing systems. Existing systems are written in variety of languages and C, while still significant, does not constitute majority. Recently created systems are mostly written in something else. > Or maybe some of that 99% just don't know what they don't know, and that's the essence of Dunning-Krueger. Or maybe those who teach C stay in their bubble and missed the fact that other things not only exist, but also took over market and mind share. > any programmer who treats "those other layers" as magic is going to be handicapped relative to a programmer who knows something about them Only if those things have any relevance to their job. If you go 2 or 3 layers below, any relevance is lost and we keep adding those layers. > For example, knowledge I gained about cache-coherency algorithms very early in my career has come back to me again and again in contexts that were surprising to my colleagues who were never exposed to that stuff. They just thought it was magic, but it turned out to be magic that could be re-applied at a different layer for big wins. So you provided some cache-coherency implementation and now they can use it without knowing how it is implemented, right? And spent their time on improving their product having the cache coherency as given? As it was magic?