5 ms·

>Again, here you seem to be arguing against a strawman that doesn't know that blocking the IO loop is bad. Try arguing against one that knows ways to work aroun

>Again, here you seem to be arguing against a strawman that doesn't know that blocking the IO loop is bad. Try arguing against one that knows ways to work around that. This is why I'm saying this rule isn't true. Extensive computation on single-threaded "scripting" languages is possible (and even if it wasn't, punt it off to a remote pool of workers, which could also be NodeJS!). Very rare to find a rule that's absolutely true.. I clearly stated exceptions to the rule (which you repeated) but the generality is still true. Threading in nodejs is new and didn't exist since the last time I touched it. It looks like it's not the standard use case as google searches still have websites with titles saying node is single threaded everywhere. The only way I can see this being done is multiple Processes (meaning each with a copy of v8) using OS shared memory as IPC and they're just calling it threads. It will take a shit load of work to make v8 actually multi-threaded. Processes are expensive so you can't really follow this model per request. And we stopped following threading per request over a decade ago. Again these are exceptions to the rule, from what I'm reading Nodejs is normally still single threaded with a fixed number of worker processes that are called "threads". Under this my general rule is still generally true: backend engineering does no typically involve writing non blocking code and offloading compute to other sources. Again, there are exceptions but as I stated before these exceptions are rare. >Here's what I mean -- you can actually solve the ordering problem in O(N) + O(M) time by keeping track of the max you've seen and building a sparse array and running through every single index from max to zero. It's overkill, but it's generally referred to as a counting sort: Oh come on. We both know these sorts won't work. These large numbers will throw off memory. Imagine 3 routes. One route gets 352 hits, another route gets 400 hits, and another route gets 600,000 hits. What's Big Oh for memory and sort? It's O(600,000) for both memory and runtime. N=3 and it doesn't even matter here. Yeah these types of sorts are almost never used for this reason, they only work for things with smaller ranges. It's also especially not useful for this project. Like this project was designed so "counting sort" fails big time. Also we don't need to talk about the O(N) read and write. That's a given it's always there. >I don't think these statements make sense -- having docker installed and having redis installed are basically equivalent work. At the end of the day, the outcome is the same -- the developer is capable of running redis locally. Having redis installed on your local machine is absolutely within range for a backend developer. Unfortunately these statements do make sense and your characterization seems completely dishonest to me. People like to keep their local environments pure and segregated away from daemons that run in a web server. I'm sure in your universe you are claiming web developers install redis, postgresql and kafka all locally but that just sounds absurd to me. We can agree to disagree but from my perspective I don't think you're being realistic here. >Also, remote development is not practiced by many companies -- the only companies I've seen doing thin-clients that are large. It's practiced by a large amount and basically every company I've worked at for the past 5 years. Every company has to at least partially do remote dev in order to fully test E2E stuff or integrations. >I see it as just spinning up docker, not compose -- you already have access to the app (ex. if it was buildable via a function) so you could spawn redis in a subprocess (or container) on a random port, and then spawn the app. Sure. The point is it's hacky to do this without an existing framework. I'll check out that library you linked. >I agree that integration testing is harder -- I think there's more value there. Of course there's more value. You get more value at higher cost. That's been my entire point. >Also, for replicating S3, minio (https://github.com/minio/minio https://github.com/minio/minio) is a good stand-in. For replicating lambda, localstack (https://docs.localstack.cloud/user-guide/aws/lambda/ https://docs.localstack.cloud/user-guide/aws/lambda/) is probably reasonable there's also frameworks with some consideration for this (https://www.serverless.com/framework/docs/providers/aws/guid https://www.serverless.com/framework/docs/providers/aws/guid...) built in. Good finds. But what about SNS, IOT, Big Query and Redshift? Again my problem isn't about specific services, it's about infra in general. >Ah, this is true -- but I think this is what people are testing in interviews. There is a predominant culture/shared values, and the test is literally whether someone can fit into those values. No. I think what's going on is people aren't putting much thought into what they're actually interviewing for. They just have some made up bar in their mind whether it's a leetcode algorithm or whether the guy wrote a unit test for the one available pure function for testing. >Whether they should or should not be, that's at least partially what interviews are -- does the new team member feel the same way about technical culture currently shared by the team. The answer is no. There's always developers who disagree with things and just don't reveal it. Think about the places you worked at. Were you in total agreement? I doubt it. A huge amount of devs are opinionated and think company policies or practices are BS. People adapt. >Now in the case of this interview your solution was just fine, even excellent (because you went out of your way to do async io, use newer/easier packaging methodologies, etc), but it's clearly not just that. The testing is just a game. I can play the game and suddenly I pass all the interviews. I think this is the flaw with your methodology as I just need to write tests to get in. Google for example in spirit attempted another method which involves testing IQ via algorithms. It's a much higher bar The problem with google is that their methodology can also be gamed but it's much harder to game it and often the bar is too high for the actual job the engineer is expected to do. I think both methodologies are flawed, but hiring via ignoring raw ability and picking people based off of weirdly specific cultural preferences is the worse of the two hiring methodologies. Put it this way. If a company has a strong testing culture, then engineers who don't typically test things will adapt. It's not hard to do, and testing isn't so annoying that they won't do it.

hardwaresofton 3y ago
> Very rare to find a rule that's absolutely true.. I clearly stated exceptions to the rule (which you repeated) but the generality is still true. > > Threading in nodejs is new and didn't exist since the last time I touched it. It looks like it's not the standard use case as google searches still have websites with titles saying node is single threaded everywhere. The only way I can see this being done is multiple Processes (meaning each with a copy of v8) using OS shared memory as IPC and they're just calling it threads. It will take a shit load of work to make v8 actually multi-threaded. > > Processes are expensive so you can't really follow this model per request. And we stopped following threading per request over a decade ago. > > Again these are exceptions to the rule, from what I'm reading Nodejs is normally still single threaded with a fixed number of worker processes that are called "threads". Under this my general rule is still generally true: backend engineering does no typically involve writing non blocking code and offloading compute to other sources. Again, there are exceptions but as I stated before these exceptions are rare. You seem to always fight the least knowledgeable strawmen. Process pooling and task distribution exist. Just because you didn't know about worker threads in NodeJS has nothing to do with me. Whether it's common or not has nothing to do with the validity of the solution. Yet another reason why NodeJS is superior as a platform to CPython. Anyway, I will take that you have relaxed your rule -- it needed to be relaxed. IIRC you said it was "definitively true" or something to that effect. > Oh come on. We both know these sorts won't work. These large numbers will throw off memory. Imagine 3 routes. One route gets 352 hits, another route gets 400 hits, and another route gets 600,000 hits. What's Big Oh for memory and sort? The array is sparse, and yes, this is exactly what I expect to happen. I wrote the scenario thinking of that. > It's O(600,000) for both memory and runtime. N=3 and it doesn't even matter here. Yeah these types of sorts are almost never used for this reason, they only work for things with smaller ranges. It's also especially not useful for this project. Like this project was designed so "counting sort" fails big time. > > Also we don't need to talk about the O(N) read and write. That's a given it's always there. Modern processors churn through numbers pretty quick, 600,000 operations is not a big deal -- still O(N)! It's better to be clear than unclear -- it was a cause for confusion, evidently because you were comparing O(Log(N)) and O(NLog(N)). The comparison for ingest O(Log(N)) and O(1). This is the last I'm going to say on this. > Unfortunately these statements do make sense and your characterization seems completely dishonest to me. People like to keep their local environments pure and segregated away from daemons that run in a web server. I'm sure in your universe you are claiming web developers install redis, postgresql and kafka all locally but that just sounds absurd to me. We can agree to disagree but from my perspective I don't think you're being realistic here. In the world before docker and docker compose, this is what people did when they had to run software to test locally. In the current world, people still do this, but it's made easier by docker and docker-compose. That's the last I'm going to say on that. > Sure. The point is it's hacky to do this without an existing framework. I'll check out that library you linked. God forbid we write useful code without an existing framework. > Of course there's more value. You get more value at higher cost. That's been my entire point. Except "cost" here is relative -- not everyone considers that cost to be high. Relative to unit tests it is higher, but it is still trivial with knowledge. It's simple, you just didn't have the knowledge so you thought it was prohibitively hard. That's fine -- that's just how technology goes. > Good finds. But what about SNS, IOT, Big Query and Redshift? Again my problem isn't about specific services, it's about infra in general. The goalposts seem to be moving, so time for me to get off the field. You noted those other tech specifically, so I answered. Read up on ways you can replicate these environments locally, or don't. If you have some you can't replicate, don't use them, or find other ways to test them that aren't completely local (i.e. running in a test account). That's the last I'm saying on that. > No. I think what's going on is people aren't putting much thought into what they're actually interviewing for. They just have some made up bar in their mind whether it's a leetcode algorithm or whether the guy wrote a unit test for the one available pure function for testing. Alright well I hope you're able to find a way through the minefield of reality, either way that's the last I'm saying on it. > The testing is just a game. I can play the game and suddenly I pass all the interviews. I think this is the flaw with your methodology as I just need to write tests to get in. Google for example in spirit attempted another method which involves testing IQ via algorithms. It's a much higher bar > > The problem with google is that their methodology can also be gamed but it's much harder to game it and often the bar is too high for the actual job the engineer is expected to do. > > I think both methodologies are flawed, but hiring via ignoring raw ability and picking people based off of weirdly specific cultural preferences is the worse of the two hiring methodologies. > > Put it this way. If a company has a strong testing culture, then engineers who don't typically test things will adapt. It's not hard to do, and testing isn't so annoying that they won't do it. Well, don't expect to win the game if you don't play. Hope this was illustrative of at least how others think -- this is the last I'm going to post, thanks for the discussion!

hardwaresofton 3y ago

> Very rare to find a rule that's absolutely true.. I clearly stated exceptions to the rule (which you repeated) but the generality is still true. > > Threading in nodejs is new and didn't exist since the last time I touched it. It looks like it's not the standard use case as google searches still have websites with titles saying node is single threaded everywhere. The only way I can see this being done is multiple Processes (meaning each with a copy of v8) using OS shared memory as IPC and they're just calling it threads. It will take a shit load of work to make v8 actually multi-threaded. > > Processes are expensive so you can't really follow this model per request. And we stopped following threading per request over a decade ago. > > Again these are exceptions to the rule, from what I'm reading Nodejs is normally still single threaded with a fixed number of worker processes that are called "threads". Under this my general rule is still generally true: backend engineering does no typically involve writing non blocking code and offloading compute to other sources. Again, there are exceptions but as I stated before these exceptions are rare. You seem to always fight the least knowledgeable strawmen. Process pooling and task distribution exist. Just because you didn't know about worker threads in NodeJS has nothing to do with me. Whether it's common or not has nothing to do with the validity of the solution. Yet another reason why NodeJS is superior as a platform to CPython. Anyway, I will take that you have relaxed your rule -- it needed to be relaxed. IIRC you said it was "definitively true" or something to that effect. > Oh come on. We both know these sorts won't work. These large numbers will throw off memory. Imagine 3 routes. One route gets 352 hits, another route gets 400 hits, and another route gets 600,000 hits. What's Big Oh for memory and sort? The array is sparse, and yes, this is exactly what I expect to happen. I wrote the scenario thinking of that. > It's O(600,000) for both memory and runtime. N=3 and it doesn't even matter here. Yeah these types of sorts are almost never used for this reason, they only work for things with smaller ranges. It's also especially not useful for this project. Like this project was designed so "counting sort" fails big time. > > Also we don't need to talk about the O(N) read and write. That's a given it's always there. Modern processors churn through numbers pretty quick, 600,000 operations is not a big deal -- still O(N)! It's better to be clear than unclear -- it was a cause for confusion, evidently because you were comparing O(Log(N)) and O(NLog(N)). The comparison for ingest O(Log(N)) and O(1). This is the last I'm going to say on this. > Unfortunately these statements do make sense and your characterization seems completely dishonest to me. People like to keep their local environments pure and segregated away from daemons that run in a web server. I'm sure in your universe you are claiming web developers install redis, postgresql and kafka all locally but that just sounds absurd to me. We can agree to disagree but from my perspective I don't think you're being realistic here. In the world before docker and docker compose, this is what people did when they had to run software to test locally. In the current world, people still do this, but it's made easier by docker and docker-compose. That's the last I'm going to say on that. > Sure. The point is it's hacky to do this without an existing framework. I'll check out that library you linked. God forbid we write useful code without an existing framework. > Of course there's more value. You get more value at higher cost. That's been my entire point. Except "cost" here is relative -- not everyone considers that cost to be high. Relative to unit tests it is higher, but it is still trivial with knowledge. It's simple, you just didn't have the knowledge so you thought it was prohibitively hard. That's fine -- that's just how technology goes. > Good finds. But what about SNS, IOT, Big Query and Redshift? Again my problem isn't about specific services, it's about infra in general. The goalposts seem to be moving, so time for me to get off the field. You noted those other tech specifically, so I answered. Read up on ways you can replicate these environments locally, or don't. If you have some you can't replicate, don't use them, or find other ways to test them that aren't completely local (i.e. running in a test account). That's the last I'm saying on that. > No. I think what's going on is people aren't putting much thought into what they're actually interviewing for. They just have some made up bar in their mind whether it's a leetcode algorithm or whether the guy wrote a unit test for the one available pure function for testing. Alright well I hope you're able to find a way through the minefield of reality, either way that's the last I'm saying on it. > The testing is just a game. I can play the game and suddenly I pass all the interviews. I think this is the flaw with your methodology as I just need to write tests to get in. Google for example in spirit attempted another method which involves testing IQ via algorithms. It's a much higher bar > > The problem with google is that their methodology can also be gamed but it's much harder to game it and often the bar is too high for the actual job the engineer is expected to do. > > I think both methodologies are flawed, but hiring via ignoring raw ability and picking people based off of weirdly specific cultural preferences is the worse of the two hiring methodologies. > > Put it this way. If a company has a strong testing culture, then engineers who don't typically test things will adapt. It's not hard to do, and testing isn't so annoying that they won't do it. Well, don't expect to win the game if you don't play. Hope this was illustrative of at least how others think -- this is the last I'm going to post, thanks for the discussion!