4 ms·
Years ago, I found a scientific paper that evaluated them all on a fairly detailed rubric. As I recall, it turned out that they're all, in actual fact, crap str
by mumblemumble 5y ago
Years ago, I found a scientific paper that evaluated them all on a fairly detailed rubric. As I recall, it turned out that they're all, in actual fact, crap stream processing engines. You just need to pick the one that's crap at things you don't need to do.
(I could frame it in a more glass half full way, but I find that the pessimistic way of looking at it helps a lot with trimming down options when you have far, far, far too many options.)
- brandmeyer 5y agoCitation needed. And not in the snarky way - I'd really like to read that paper :)
- mumblemumble 5y agoI've long since lost track of it. It would be 5 or 6 years out of date at this point, anyway, so probably not very useful for informing decisions anymore.
- fizwhiz 5y agoI'm guessing they were referring to "Scalability! But at what COST?" https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/hotos15/hotos15-paper-mcsherry.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/hotos15/hotos...
- monocasa 5y agoI've just accepted that mindset as a part of the art of engineering. Shifting the inherent crappiness of a domain around to where it doesn't matter as much for your use case.