3 ms·
Regarding message passing, it seems that everything you said applies to a microservice architecture. Yet people do it in hopes of scalability.
by gugagore 7y ago
Regarding message passing, it seems that everything you said applies to a microservice architecture. Yet people do it in hopes of scalability.
- jayd16 7y agoThe difference is you scale your microservice across many machines. Sure you could probably do this with Erlang but that's not the kind of perf the parent is talking about I do agree that there's a striking resemblance between the goals of Erlang and the goals of microservices though.
- jstewartmobile 7y ago"like pouring the foundation for global HQ before the first customer has even signed" I think this is a bad paradigm for early-stage software. It's premature over-engineering. It's taking a fundamentally sequential process, and busting it up into a nest of messages and concurrent LWPs that "fail fast" when all of that could be easily foregone by just staying lean and handling the errors. I also think this is a bad paradigm for large-scale software--jamming all of the pieces into one dynamically typed language/VM with its own bespoke distributed protocol and monitoring tools. Common standards like HTTP/RPC/GraphQL/etc are far more flexible at connecting the nodes, and BEAM has a long road ahead to catch-up to existing OS tooling.