10 ms·

We might be working on the same project... or the "same" project, if you know what I mean. The level of abstraction that is commonplace these days is insane.

We might be working on the same project... or the "same" project, if you know what I mean. The level of abstraction that is commonplace these days is insane. At $dayjob, there is a reverse proxy in front of a API gateway that is itself a load-balanced service. There are load-balancers behind it, pointing at a reverse proxy on a service fabric. Within that, some "architect" decided to add additional "mid tier" servers because that was the cool thing to do in the 1990s. Behind all of this is an Azure App Service, which is in turn a load-balanced server that includes a reverse proxy. They want to move this to Kubernetes, so they can now have proxies seven layers deep, nested hypervisors running containers, and services ping-ponging across six zones (data centre locations) in two different clouds. That connectivity will go through a software virtual router platform, so it's not even direct point-to-point connectivity. I pity the poor fool who will have to diagnose an operational issue in this madness. No mere mortal will be able to make it go fast.

userbinator 4y ago
Someone is paying for all of that, and someone is getting paid. Look no further beyond those getting paid to find the reason such monstrosities exist.
- nosianu 4y ago
  No I don't think so. That explanation only works for simple systems, if at all. But all the many players and their very diverse needs and ideas are very complex. I think i's more likely that it's something described in studies about human problem solving, which leads us to preferring overly complex solutions because we prefer adding something. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0 (you may need Sci-Hub - paywalled) > Adding is favoured over subtracting in problem solving > A series of problem-solving experiments reveal that people are more likely to consider solutions that add features than solutions that remove them, even when removing features is more efficient. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03380-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03380-y > People systematically overlook subtractive changes https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-brain-typically-overlooks-this-brilliant-problem-solving-strategy/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-brain-typical... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-problem-solving-nature/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-prob... I think we also have forces in play that add to this bias. Or they are the result of it, for some of them. For example, when there is an easy and cheap or even free solution there is no incentive for marketing and selling it. It's hard to tell a customer that they don't actually need you, especially if it isn't a one-off, or that they should go somewhere cheaper and more simple. It is much easier to get paid for adding than for doing nothing or for subtracting, both as an employee and as a business. It certainly looks that way when I look around. We have frequent complaints about a lack of skilled labor - but that's also because everything keeps getting more and more complex. For example, once it was enough to once every half year update a piece of paper on each bus or tram or train station with the schedule. Now it's some highly complex networked computer solution and display to display when the next bus is going to arrive. Sure there is added value - but there also is a gigantic amount of new complexity for every small "convenience". When it comes to something like waiting for the next tram, specially in an urban environment with 10 minute schedule, the benefit of knowing if it's 2 or 7 minutes that you'll have to wait is negligible compared to the effort of providing and maintaining that service. (we have this situation in my town). Of course there is added value for much of it, maybe all. But I see the complexity and size of systems I knew in a much more simple form when I grew up exploding. The problem is, continuously educating new people to know ever more and to be able to handle more and more sophisticated systems has a continuously increasing cost to society too, since we don't live any longer than before. Never mind everything we do, from planning to maintenance, is ever more complex too. In addition, the new system may not be as robust as the more simple ones of the past. It all works as long as it does. If we see another chip crisis for example, and I just read a pretty dark forecast for China/Taiwan, all those solutions that require working world-wide supply chains, here, chips from Taiwan, are a problem.
  - pbourke 4y ago
    In enterprise systems, it’s always easier (organizationally) to add a feature than to subtract one. Subtraction usually puts some work in the queue of some team, which is usually not politically viable. For instance, say Team A is used to receiving a report in Excel every week. If an upstream system is added or changed, Team A will fight like hell to keep their Excel report even if it’s no longer needed. Whereas “the system shall generate a weekly Excel report” is just another feature in the backlog and much easier to sell to the organization.
  - ako 4y ago
    Most architects have limited influence on the entire stack, so they try to achieve results in the sub part they can control. This leads to overly complex sub parts, as you can’t optimize the entire stack. Probably another example of Conway s law.
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    Excellent response, but I suspect you were agreeing with the person you were replying to, instead of making a counter-argument. I just watched a simple four-building network get over-architected into a monstrosity involving multiple consultancies, vendors, and products. Why? Nobody gets paid to not add things. Especially as a third-party, you get no money at all for doing nothing, even if that’s the best solution for the customer. Worse still, in this case the vendor relationship was managed by a customer staffer who is themselves a direct contractor! If the work to manage external consultants dries up, their own contract won’t be renewed. “You can’t convince someone of something if their salary depends on them not believing it.”
    - jen729w 4y ago
      I’m the OP of this thread. Many, many of the people on this gig — yours truly included — are contractors…
      - jiggawatts 4y ago
        I'm a consultant also, and more than a few times I've advised the customer not to overcomplicate things. I can only "afford" to do this because I'm already over-worked and not in need of additional projects. Some other consultants in those meetings looked at me like I had grown a second head that started speaking in Klingon.
redandblack 4y ago
well LLMs have proved themselves by stacking layers upon layers - maybe your architects have figured out the magic also (without interpretation/comprehension obviously). Good luck as we all live in interesting times
cutemonster 4y ago
How high is the load? (From what I'm seeing between the lines, it's not much?) > I pity the poor fool who will have to diagnose an operational issue Why? They're getting paid, have a job, it's great Pity the business owners instead maybe. But they're clueless and happy too? Hmm. I start thinking these things are the natural course of events. Techies adding more techies and complexity, maybe just like middle managers can hire more managers and bureaucrats and make not the tech, but the organization, more complex (and thus better, from their own personal perspective?)
- nine_k 4y ago
  >> I pity the poor fool who will have to diagnose an operational issue > Why? They're getting paid, have a job, it's great Since they won't be able to diagnose the issue, except by pure luck, let alone fix the issue, they may be reprimanded and fired, even though they did nothing wrong. Not really great to tell their next employer that they were fired, or getting references.
  - cutemonster 4y ago
    Yes if that happens. The company can't keep firing everyone who touches that part of the system though? Maybe bad luck for the first ones, and later, when the company has come to accept how things are, it'll mean more jobs and money for the tech people
- jen729w 4y ago
  > Pity the business owners instead maybe. But they're clueless and happy too? A federal government department so yeah, that statement is accurate enough. Unfortunately we all pay the bills at the end of the day.

userbinator 4y ago

Someone is paying for all of that, and someone is getting paid. Look no further beyond those getting paid to find the reason such monstrosities exist.

nosianu 4y ago
No I don't think so. That explanation only works for simple systems, if at all. But all the many players and their very diverse needs and ideas are very complex. I think i's more likely that it's something described in studies about human problem solving, which leads us to preferring overly complex solutions because we prefer adding something. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0 (you may need Sci-Hub - paywalled) > Adding is favoured over subtracting in problem solving > A series of problem-solving experiments reveal that people are more likely to consider solutions that add features than solutions that remove them, even when removing features is more efficient. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03380-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03380-y > People systematically overlook subtractive changes https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-brain-typically-overlooks-this-brilliant-problem-solving-strategy/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-brain-typical... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-problem-solving-nature/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-prob... I think we also have forces in play that add to this bias. Or they are the result of it, for some of them. For example, when there is an easy and cheap or even free solution there is no incentive for marketing and selling it. It's hard to tell a customer that they don't actually need you, especially if it isn't a one-off, or that they should go somewhere cheaper and more simple. It is much easier to get paid for adding than for doing nothing or for subtracting, both as an employee and as a business. It certainly looks that way when I look around. We have frequent complaints about a lack of skilled labor - but that's also because everything keeps getting more and more complex. For example, once it was enough to once every half year update a piece of paper on each bus or tram or train station with the schedule. Now it's some highly complex networked computer solution and display to display when the next bus is going to arrive. Sure there is added value - but there also is a gigantic amount of new complexity for every small "convenience". When it comes to something like waiting for the next tram, specially in an urban environment with 10 minute schedule, the benefit of knowing if it's 2 or 7 minutes that you'll have to wait is negligible compared to the effort of providing and maintaining that service. (we have this situation in my town). Of course there is added value for much of it, maybe all. But I see the complexity and size of systems I knew in a much more simple form when I grew up exploding. The problem is, continuously educating new people to know ever more and to be able to handle more and more sophisticated systems has a continuously increasing cost to society too, since we don't live any longer than before. Never mind everything we do, from planning to maintenance, is ever more complex too. In addition, the new system may not be as robust as the more simple ones of the past. It all works as long as it does. If we see another chip crisis for example, and I just read a pretty dark forecast for China/Taiwan, all those solutions that require working world-wide supply chains, here, chips from Taiwan, are a problem.
- pbourke 4y ago
  In enterprise systems, it’s always easier (organizationally) to add a feature than to subtract one. Subtraction usually puts some work in the queue of some team, which is usually not politically viable. For instance, say Team A is used to receiving a report in Excel every week. If an upstream system is added or changed, Team A will fight like hell to keep their Excel report even if it’s no longer needed. Whereas “the system shall generate a weekly Excel report” is just another feature in the backlog and much easier to sell to the organization.
- ako 4y ago
  Most architects have limited influence on the entire stack, so they try to achieve results in the sub part they can control. This leads to overly complex sub parts, as you can’t optimize the entire stack. Probably another example of Conway s law.
- jiggawatts 4y ago
  Excellent response, but I suspect you were agreeing with the person you were replying to, instead of making a counter-argument. I just watched a simple four-building network get over-architected into a monstrosity involving multiple consultancies, vendors, and products. Why? Nobody gets paid to not add things. Especially as a third-party, you get no money at all for doing nothing, even if that’s the best solution for the customer. Worse still, in this case the vendor relationship was managed by a customer staffer who is themselves a direct contractor! If the work to manage external consultants dries up, their own contract won’t be renewed. “You can’t convince someone of something if their salary depends on them not believing it.”
  - jen729w 4y ago
    I’m the OP of this thread. Many, many of the people on this gig — yours truly included — are contractors…
    - jiggawatts 4y ago
      I'm a consultant also, and more than a few times I've advised the customer not to overcomplicate things. I can only "afford" to do this because I'm already over-worked and not in need of additional projects. Some other consultants in those meetings looked at me like I had grown a second head that started speaking in Klingon.

redandblack 4y ago

well LLMs have proved themselves by stacking layers upon layers - maybe your architects have figured out the magic also (without interpretation/comprehension obviously). Good luck as we all live in interesting times

cutemonster 4y ago

How high is the load? (From what I'm seeing between the lines, it's not much?) > I pity the poor fool who will have to diagnose an operational issue Why? They're getting paid, have a job, it's great Pity the business owners instead maybe. But they're clueless and happy too? Hmm. I start thinking these things are the natural course of events. Techies adding more techies and complexity, maybe just like middle managers can hire more managers and bureaucrats and make not the tech, but the organization, more complex (and thus better, from their own personal perspective?)

nine_k 4y ago
>> I pity the poor fool who will have to diagnose an operational issue > Why? They're getting paid, have a job, it's great Since they won't be able to diagnose the issue, except by pure luck, let alone fix the issue, they may be reprimanded and fired, even though they did nothing wrong. Not really great to tell their next employer that they were fired, or getting references.
- cutemonster 4y ago
  Yes if that happens. The company can't keep firing everyone who touches that part of the system though? Maybe bad luck for the first ones, and later, when the company has come to accept how things are, it'll mean more jobs and money for the tech people
jen729w 4y ago
> Pity the business owners instead maybe. But they're clueless and happy too? A federal government department so yeah, that statement is accurate enough. Unfortunately we all pay the bills at the end of the day.