3 ms·

> "upstream and downstream" in microservice architecture. Those terms are used in relation to dependencies and who consumes what. It has nothing to do with mic

by junon 5y ago

> "upstream and downstream" in microservice architecture. Those terms are used in relation to dependencies and who consumes what. It has nothing to do with microservice architectures. This article seems to talk a lot about... nothing. I don't really see the point it's trying to make - we use technical terms not to be human friendly but to be technical. We're not writing for children or for laymen all the time.

johndoughy 5y ago
> Those terms are used in relation to dependencies and who consumes what. I think your response exactly illustrates the point of the post: if upstream and downstream had clearer names, you wouldn't need to define them. And if they indeed mean what you say, wouldn't producer and consumer be clearer? > I don't really see the point it's trying to make - we use technical terms not to be human friendly but to be technical. I don't think I can agree that technical terms aren't meant to be human friendly. After all, languages exist to convery ideas to other humans; words aren't opcodes intended to be executed by machines. If technical terms aren't meant to be human friendly, why did humans invent them at all? And if they are intended to be human friendly, why not optimize them for clarity and precision?
- junon 5y ago
  > wouldn't producer and consumer be clearer? Absolutely not. It makes no sense. "There was a producer outage." means nothing. Neither does "I'll have to file a bug with the producer dependency."
nvader 5y ago
But we are writing for humans, and so ease of recollection is a key result that our technical terms are measured against. Do not make the mistake that technical terms need to be inscrutable, for by hanging on ideas that the student or brew practitioner may have encountered in their life, we can give them a peg to hang their understanding of the concept that we are trying to explain. Consider, for example, the technical terms, durability, integrity, power, confidentiality, friendly, field, cross.
KarlKemp 5y ago
> we use technical terms not to be human friendly but to be technical. What does that even mean? Arbitrary useless names are better because they are so devoid of meaning? Making things needlessly hard is “professional”? “Professionals” are superior “technical” people that do not respond to inferior human mechanisms such as “making sense”?
- OJFord 5y ago
  That it conveys more information to a smaller group of people. If that smaller group is the intended audience, that's better than less information. If the intended audience is broader, less information (layman's terms) might be better. A doctor can say to me 'we think there's a clot and we need to get you to theatre asap' and that's fine, but I hope they say something more technical (that conveys where it is, the nature of it, whatever) to the surgeon!

by junon 5y ago

johndoughy 5y ago

> Those terms are used in relation to dependencies and who consumes what. I think your response exactly illustrates the point of the post: if upstream and downstream had clearer names, you wouldn't need to define them. And if they indeed mean what you say, wouldn't producer and consumer be clearer? > I don't really see the point it's trying to make - we use technical terms not to be human friendly but to be technical. I don't think I can agree that technical terms aren't meant to be human friendly. After all, languages exist to convery ideas to other humans; words aren't opcodes intended to be executed by machines. If technical terms aren't meant to be human friendly, why did humans invent them at all? And if they are intended to be human friendly, why not optimize them for clarity and precision?

junon 5y ago
> wouldn't producer and consumer be clearer? Absolutely not. It makes no sense. "There was a producer outage." means nothing. Neither does "I'll have to file a bug with the producer dependency."

nvader 5y ago

But we are writing for humans, and so ease of recollection is a key result that our technical terms are measured against. Do not make the mistake that technical terms need to be inscrutable, for by hanging on ideas that the student or brew practitioner may have encountered in their life, we can give them a peg to hang their understanding of the concept that we are trying to explain. Consider, for example, the technical terms, durability, integrity, power, confidentiality, friendly, field, cross.

KarlKemp 5y ago

> we use technical terms not to be human friendly but to be technical. What does that even mean? Arbitrary useless names are better because they are so devoid of meaning? Making things needlessly hard is “professional”? “Professionals” are superior “technical” people that do not respond to inferior human mechanisms such as “making sense”?

OJFord 5y ago
That it conveys more information to a smaller group of people. If that smaller group is the intended audience, that's better than less information. If the intended audience is broader, less information (layman's terms) might be better. A doctor can say to me 'we think there's a clot and we need to get you to theatre asap' and that's fine, but I hope they say something more technical (that conveys where it is, the nature of it, whatever) to the surgeon!