5 ms·

The engineers at meta worte a language + runtime on top of PHP to make it work "at scale". If Facebook wants to make something work they have enough resources

The engineers at meta worte a language + runtime on top of PHP to make it work "at scale". If Facebook wants to make something work they have enough resources to throw at the problem to solve it. Regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

jerf 3y ago
I mean, as far as I'm concerned, everything Facebook has done has done nothing but reconfirm how unwise it is to build large-scale infrastructure on dynamic scripting languages. They have the resources to move heaven and earth to do what amounts to turning their dynamic scripting language back into static languages in everything but name, and they have the hole they've dug themselves into that justifies it. I have neither. I don't think that Facebook necessarily made a mistake at the time, though. Static languages have come a long way. I can prototype in them very nearly as quickly as I can in dynamic languages now, with the crossover point for where the static language is simply straight-up an advantage being roughly one to two weeks. Circa 2004 I would not even remotely make that claim. By the time static languages reached that state they were already in deep. But I would consider it a mistake for most cases to start right now, in 2023, with dynamic scripting languages as a base layer.
- crabbone 3y ago
  > dynamic scripting languages. Why keep repeating this nonsense? "Dynamic" or "scripting" aren't features of languages. When anyone says something like this, it's like talking about square chicken... (i.e. a category error). Obviously, you had some idea in your mind, and you wanted to communicate it somehow, but your readers will not know what it was unless you make an effort to analyze what you want to say and make sure it doesn't have internal contradictions and that readers can within reason understand what you are trying to say. You seem to be complaining about something. My guess is that your problem isn't even with the language. Your problem is that some tools for working with your kind of programs are missing or aren't effective.
  - jerf 3y ago
    Because it a common term used for a category of languages that everybody understands. If you have a problem with it, you can take it up with the aforementioned everybody. Personally I think it gets perilously close to the error that if you argue definitions enough you can change reality. It doesn't matter what labels we slap on clearly related languages Python/Perl/Javascript/Lua/PHP/Javascript, I consider it a mistake to build a large system with them in 2023 because of their deficiencies, and given the extreme efforts being exerted trying to fix those very same deficiencies with things like gradual typing and strongly-typed languages like TypeScript that compile down into them, which includes the effort Facebook has exerted, clearly it is not a terribly heterodox opinion.
    - lijok 3y ago
      > I consider it a mistake to build a large system with them in 2023 A mistake in what sense? What are the risks that you see with using these languages for large scale systems, and how do those risks balance around all the other risks that come with not using one of these languages and using a different one?
      - jerf 3y ago
        I think I pretty much laid out the bulk of the argument. Facebook is moving heaven and earth to mitigate their choice of a dynamic language, even if it was the right choice at the time. You can go look at everything they've done, and everything Typescript has done, and all the gradual typing initiatives. I left plenty of threads to pull there.
  - myvoiceismypass 3y ago
    Dynamic Typing is absolutely a feature of languages. Static Typing is, as well. I was not confused by using these terms. I cannot imagine many people on HN were either.
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    > "Dynamic" or "scripting" aren't features of languages Surely dynamic typing is a language feature? I can't imagine what else someone would refer to with "dynamic".
tyingq 3y ago
Out of the box php also scaled pretty damn far for them before they had to do anything significant. Hundreds of millions of users as early as 2009, which seems to be before the original Hiphop existed.

jerf 3y ago

I mean, as far as I'm concerned, everything Facebook has done has done nothing but reconfirm how unwise it is to build large-scale infrastructure on dynamic scripting languages. They have the resources to move heaven and earth to do what amounts to turning their dynamic scripting language back into static languages in everything but name, and they have the hole they've dug themselves into that justifies it. I have neither. I don't think that Facebook necessarily made a mistake at the time, though. Static languages have come a long way. I can prototype in them very nearly as quickly as I can in dynamic languages now, with the crossover point for where the static language is simply straight-up an advantage being roughly one to two weeks. Circa 2004 I would not even remotely make that claim. By the time static languages reached that state they were already in deep. But I would consider it a mistake for most cases to start right now, in 2023, with dynamic scripting languages as a base layer.

crabbone 3y ago
> dynamic scripting languages. Why keep repeating this nonsense? "Dynamic" or "scripting" aren't features of languages. When anyone says something like this, it's like talking about square chicken... (i.e. a category error). Obviously, you had some idea in your mind, and you wanted to communicate it somehow, but your readers will not know what it was unless you make an effort to analyze what you want to say and make sure it doesn't have internal contradictions and that readers can within reason understand what you are trying to say. You seem to be complaining about something. My guess is that your problem isn't even with the language. Your problem is that some tools for working with your kind of programs are missing or aren't effective.
- jerf 3y ago
  Because it a common term used for a category of languages that everybody understands. If you have a problem with it, you can take it up with the aforementioned everybody. Personally I think it gets perilously close to the error that if you argue definitions enough you can change reality. It doesn't matter what labels we slap on clearly related languages Python/Perl/Javascript/Lua/PHP/Javascript, I consider it a mistake to build a large system with them in 2023 because of their deficiencies, and given the extreme efforts being exerted trying to fix those very same deficiencies with things like gradual typing and strongly-typed languages like TypeScript that compile down into them, which includes the effort Facebook has exerted, clearly it is not a terribly heterodox opinion.
  - lijok 3y ago
    > I consider it a mistake to build a large system with them in 2023 A mistake in what sense? What are the risks that you see with using these languages for large scale systems, and how do those risks balance around all the other risks that come with not using one of these languages and using a different one?
    - jerf 3y ago
      I think I pretty much laid out the bulk of the argument. Facebook is moving heaven and earth to mitigate their choice of a dynamic language, even if it was the right choice at the time. You can go look at everything they've done, and everything Typescript has done, and all the gradual typing initiatives. I left plenty of threads to pull there.
- myvoiceismypass 3y ago
  Dynamic Typing is absolutely a feature of languages. Static Typing is, as well. I was not confused by using these terms. I cannot imagine many people on HN were either.
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  > "Dynamic" or "scripting" aren't features of languages Surely dynamic typing is a language feature? I can't imagine what else someone would refer to with "dynamic".

tyingq 3y ago

Out of the box php also scaled pretty damn far for them before they had to do anything significant. Hundreds of millions of users as early as 2009, which seems to be before the original Hiphop existed.