3 ms·
Yes, but buildpacks and Heroku have a similarity: incredibly simple to do the simple thing, incredibly opaque to do the complex thing. With a dockerfile, people
by erulabs 6y ago
Yes, but buildpacks and Heroku have a similarity: incredibly simple to do the simple thing, incredibly opaque to do the complex thing. With a dockerfile, people can just install what they need. Sure - it could potentially be more efficient, but I like to focus on human efficiency rather than machine efficiency. Happy developers > fast CI systems :)
- jacques_chester 6y agoBut Cloud Native Buildpacks are intended for the happiness of humans as well as machines. They can update an image faster than docker build can, because of careful selection of layers and by performing operations directly against a registry (rebasing). A developer can achieve some the same things with artfully-designed Dockerfiles, but then they're back to "what buildpacks can already do for me". CNBs are a ground-up redesign of buildpacks, taking advantage of new foundations, with specific efforts to remedy the things that used to suck. They're composible instead of being giant monoliths, they update super fast and then you still get all the other niceties you used to have. Plus someone else maintains them and you'll never need to run a zillion rebuilds for every CVE that affects your OS, it's a simple rebase operation. In my wildly biased opinion, I think they are worth another look, once you find time.
- erulabs 6y agoOh I agree with you - build packs are excellent! It's more about introducing one technology at a time. People who know about cloud native build packs typically don't need help writing dockerfiles or getting going on Kubernetes. On step at a time is all :)