4 ms·
> It does not matter if the "secret sauce infra" is better than equivalents. That is what the OP suggested. > What matters is that the code you have is based
by acituan 6y ago
> It does not matter if the "secret sauce infra" is better than equivalents.
That is what the OP suggested.
> What matters is that the code you have is based on it
It is the nature of infrastructure is to be independent from business logic. I’m not saying any migration would be trivial, but it is also not as cost prohibitive as you seem to be arguing for. RPC is a very old and generic concept, so unless reader was depending on Google specific RPC mechanics, the cost of swapping one RPC tech with another is not going to be to the extent of warranting uttering of concepts like anti-trust.
- dodobirdlord 6y agoThe distinction is less important at Google, where all of the code is in a monorepo and all of the infrastructure was custom-built to support the products.
- acituan 6y agoMonorepo doesn’t mean a monolith, it is about code repositories, not about the extent of software reuse. You could convert the entirety of open source code into a monorepo too, but it wouldn’t mean they magically reuse each other. > all of the infrastructure was custom-built to support the products. That tells me you might not have experienced software development in a large company. I don’t know the specifics of Google, but custom tailoring infra is a combinatorially explosively problem if you have hundreds/thousands of products you need to “custom tailor” to. And if you could, would the result be really custom tailored anymore or general enough to have universal use? Your argument is self contradictory.