4 ms·

> Systems built as Reactive Systems are more flexible, loosely-coupled and scalable. I'm so weary of this kind of language. Literally everybody trying to sell

> Systems built as Reactive Systems are more flexible, loosely-coupled and scalable. I'm so weary of this kind of language. Literally everybody trying to sell you an architecture - good or bad - would probably describe it as "more flexible, loosely-coupled and scalable". Not to mention the open question: relative to what? Average? Every other possible approach? The approach currently seen as dominant? I just wish people would skip the pageantry and go straight to the benefits/tradeoffs. If you elide or deny the existence of tradeoffs, that's only going to deepen my skepticism even further.

JoshTriplett 5y ago
> Literally everybody trying to sell you an architecture - good or bad - would probably describe it as "more flexible, loosely-coupled and scalable". [...] If you elide or deny the existence of tradeoffs "loosely coupled" is a tradeoff; when I hear about an architecture being "loosely coupled", I assume that it allows substituting different components easily, but I also assume that it may be harder to evolve that interface and make use of the full capabilities on both sides. Sometimes I want that (if I'm looking to replace one of those components), but sometimes I want something more tightly integrated. Similarly, "flexible" is a tradeoff; some frameworks describe themselves as "opinionated" rather than "flexible".
- rhacker 5y ago
  It typically means there is a message bus that receives events and it distributes them to various listeners, generically which are free to do what they want with them. I agree with the general premise of that, but yes, not all software or applications need such a super generic construct.
caeril 5y ago
> loosely-coupled What's really funny is that the latest fad for those running microservices is to go to monorepos, to make sure that all their APIs are synchronized, which is effectively tightly-coupling them again.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- vkou 5y ago
  Monorepos aren't a fad. They are strictly a super-set of functionality and capability over siloed repos, that also happen to simplify common development cases. They just weren't feasible before modern tooling - and without it, their drawbacks significantly outweighed their benefits. It's like calling electric-assisted bikes a fad. No, people always wanted motorized bicycles, but prior to advancements in battery technology supplanting ICEs, they were heavy, loud, noisy, and smelly. Nowadays, they are just heavy. Does this make them harder to use in certain contexts? Yes. Climbing stairs with one sucks. Does electric-assist make them a better vehicle for getting from point A to point B in any city with hills? Absolutely.

JoshTriplett 5y ago

> Literally everybody trying to sell you an architecture - good or bad - would probably describe it as "more flexible, loosely-coupled and scalable". [...] If you elide or deny the existence of tradeoffs "loosely coupled" is a tradeoff; when I hear about an architecture being "loosely coupled", I assume that it allows substituting different components easily, but I also assume that it may be harder to evolve that interface and make use of the full capabilities on both sides. Sometimes I want that (if I'm looking to replace one of those components), but sometimes I want something more tightly integrated. Similarly, "flexible" is a tradeoff; some frameworks describe themselves as "opinionated" rather than "flexible".

rhacker 5y ago
It typically means there is a message bus that receives events and it distributes them to various listeners, generically which are free to do what they want with them. I agree with the general premise of that, but yes, not all software or applications need such a super generic construct.

caeril 5y ago

> loosely-coupled What's really funny is that the latest fad for those running microservices is to go to monorepos, to make sure that all their APIs are synchronized, which is effectively tightly-coupling them again.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vkou 5y ago
Monorepos aren't a fad. They are strictly a super-set of functionality and capability over siloed repos, that also happen to simplify common development cases. They just weren't feasible before modern tooling - and without it, their drawbacks significantly outweighed their benefits. It's like calling electric-assisted bikes a fad. No, people always wanted motorized bicycles, but prior to advancements in battery technology supplanting ICEs, they were heavy, loud, noisy, and smelly. Nowadays, they are just heavy. Does this make them harder to use in certain contexts? Yes. Climbing stairs with one sucks. Does electric-assist make them a better vehicle for getting from point A to point B in any city with hills? Absolutely.