3 ms·
In this thread a guy talks about using the Q language and then someone else jumps in and says 'it's not scalable etc.' https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=218
by shrubble 7y ago
In this thread a guy talks about using the Q language and then someone else jumps in and says 'it's not scalable etc.'
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21854793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21854793
What if all this cloud/k8s / serverless stuff is really all piffle? What if running stuff on dedicated hardware ends up a better solution in some fashion?
- kick 7y agoThe claim that k/q isn't scalable is false for anyone curious: k/q is incredibly scalable. That's a selling point of it.
- icebraining 7y agoIt may be fashionable and overused, but I don't think we can talk about the cloud as if it was still something new and unknown. By now I think one can already do an informed decision on which to use for a particular problem.
- jakobegger 7y ago> an informed decision on which to use for a particular problem I doubt that really is the case. I think most decisions are made based either on anecdotes, or whatever someone happens to have experience with. It's rare that you can accurately predict the kind of workloads you'll have to deal with ahead of time, and it's even rarer that the people making the decision have experience with multiple completely different stacks. And I don't really think it matters that much. Some people solve the problem with distributed document stores and key value stores, other people use a big transactional database and just keep putting extra RAM sticks in their server... I don't think there's always an obviously "better" choice.