3 ms·

> ...in very little time and effort. You have a very naive view of large-scale distributed systems. For companies that truly need them, "time" and "effort" are

> ...in very little time and effort. You have a very naive view of large-scale distributed systems. For companies that truly need them, "time" and "effort" are never a consideration. Furthermore, the challenges facing these companies in battling project delays and cost overruns are the 100% organizational and political, not technical.

rapsey 7y ago
Where did I mention "large-scale distributed systems"? My entire intention was to say Erlang is easy to get off the ground with quickly. Most companies outside of the Silicon valley bubble are resource limited.
- otabdeveloper4 7y ago
  Let me unpack my way comment: a) Erlang (as opposed to something else) is only useful for large distributed systems. b) If your organization is at the scale where you need a large distributed system, then the problems in your project aren't related to code or to coding speed.
  - rapsey 7y ago
    a) But it is not. Erlang is a very productive language and works great even for small projects. b) Needing a large distributed system is a requirement that one can get to from lots of situations. You are making way too large of a generalization.
    - otabdeveloper4 7y ago
      a) Every programming language is a "very productive language" that "works great". Nobody ever thought to themselves "let's make a programming language that's hard to use and wastes time". (And even if they did, they would have never convinced other people to use it.) b) No. Large distributed systems is not something you stumble onto, it's a result of many years of organic growth.
toast0 7y ago
Being able to build these systems with significantly less time and effort makes them more approachable for smaller teams and companies, where time and effort can be more important than organizational politics.
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
Sure if you truly need something you will build it no matter what time or effort is involved, so in this way it is not a consideration. On the other hand if you can build it in half the time or cost you might find that some considering will be done as to which path should be chosen.
zbentley 7y ago
> For companies that truly need them, "time" and "effort" are never a consideration. I'm not sure that's true. Sure, a few of the most famous software companies in the world have built their own at considerable cost. But numerous other huge, important companies are dependent on large-scale distributed systems whose major drawbacks (reliability and maximum scale, usually) and major benefits (simplicity, time/resources saved on not having to hire tons of specialists, quick development time) are based precisely in the time and effort constraints under which those systems were developed.
yawaramin 7y ago
Sorry but it seems you have a naive view of large companies :-) They are giant spendthrifts, are bogged down in tons of bureaucracy, and overload developers at 1.5–2x allocation. With these conditions, you'll be lucky if you can get the compute capacity you need to run critical services. Oh, and also if some architect doesn't come around and instruct you to write everything in NodeJS 'because we can backfill NodeJS devs easily'.

rapsey 7y ago

Where did I mention "large-scale distributed systems"? My entire intention was to say Erlang is easy to get off the ground with quickly. Most companies outside of the Silicon valley bubble are resource limited.

otabdeveloper4 7y ago
Let me unpack my way comment: a) Erlang (as opposed to something else) is only useful for large distributed systems. b) If your organization is at the scale where you need a large distributed system, then the problems in your project aren't related to code or to coding speed.
- rapsey 7y ago
  a) But it is not. Erlang is a very productive language and works great even for small projects. b) Needing a large distributed system is a requirement that one can get to from lots of situations. You are making way too large of a generalization.
  - otabdeveloper4 7y ago
    a) Every programming language is a "very productive language" that "works great". Nobody ever thought to themselves "let's make a programming language that's hard to use and wastes time". (And even if they did, they would have never convinced other people to use it.) b) No. Large distributed systems is not something you stumble onto, it's a result of many years of organic growth.

toast0 7y ago

Being able to build these systems with significantly less time and effort makes them more approachable for smaller teams and companies, where time and effort can be more important than organizational politics.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

Sure if you truly need something you will build it no matter what time or effort is involved, so in this way it is not a consideration. On the other hand if you can build it in half the time or cost you might find that some considering will be done as to which path should be chosen.

zbentley 7y ago

> For companies that truly need them, "time" and "effort" are never a consideration. I'm not sure that's true. Sure, a few of the most famous software companies in the world have built their own at considerable cost. But numerous other huge, important companies are dependent on large-scale distributed systems whose major drawbacks (reliability and maximum scale, usually) and major benefits (simplicity, time/resources saved on not having to hire tons of specialists, quick development time) are based precisely in the time and effort constraints under which those systems were developed.

yawaramin 7y ago

Sorry but it seems you have a naive view of large companies :-) They are giant spendthrifts, are bogged down in tons of bureaucracy, and overload developers at 1.5–2x allocation. With these conditions, you'll be lucky if you can get the compute capacity you need to run critical services. Oh, and also if some architect doesn't come around and instruct you to write everything in NodeJS 'because we can backfill NodeJS devs easily'.