5 ms·
The answer (IMHO) is to not use services that make it impossible to develop locally, unless you can trivially mock them; the benefits of such services aren't wo
by jasonhansel 5y ago
The answer (IMHO) is to not use services that make it impossible to develop locally, unless you can trivially mock them; the benefits of such services aren't worth it if they result in a system that is inherently untestable with an environment that's inherently unreproducible.
(I can go on a rant about AWS Lambda, and how if they'd used a standardized interface like FastCGI it would make local testing trivial, but they won't do that because they need vendor lock-in...)
- Gigachad 5y agoYeah, ideally you'd only use the ones which are just managed versions of software you can run locally. Stuff like managed databases and redis.
- jasonhansel 5y agoAgreed. And stay away from proprietary cloud services that lock you into a specific cloud provider. Otherwise, you'll end up like one of those companies that still does everything on MS SQL Server and various Oracle byproducts despite rising costs because of decisions made many years ago.
- dboreham 5y agoAmen
- TruthWillHurt 5y agoAwesome. you just cost your company $500K in salaries for people to maintain databases, networks, storage, servers and a bunch of other stuff Google/AWS already do much better than you. How lucky you are that management pays you to pursue your hobbies!
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]