3 ms·
> you reap the benefits of type-safety, testability, and code reuse, etc. If you treat infrastructure as a problem that has to be solved by code, obviously you
by mike_d 3y ago
> you reap the benefits of type-safety, testability, and code reuse, etc.
If you treat infrastructure as a problem that has to be solved by code, obviously you'll run into code specific issues like type safety. In the real world I've never root caused a production issue back to that.
- tikhonj 3y agoYou've never run into issues where unclear, undocumented, misunderstood or inconsistent interfaces were a significant contributing factor?
- ParetoOptimal 3y ago> like type safety. In the real world I've never root caused a production issue back to that. Your definition of type safety might not include validation + using the type to carry proof of that validation throughout the life of the program. For examples see: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-validate/ https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-va...
- fwip 3y agoType safety isn't a code-specific issue, it's a feature. A YAML configuration file missing a required key, or a misspelling, or a disallowed mixing of parameters, are all things that can be solved by type-safety, rather than getting a deploy-time or run-time error.