3 ms·

This conflict comes up everywhere: Newtonian physics/mechanics: good enough in a lot of cases. Einstein accurate, but unnecessary in most cases. In many case

This conflict comes up everywhere: Newtonian physics/mechanics: good enough in a lot of cases. Einstein accurate, but unnecessary in most cases. In many cases CAP is good enough for us to have the conversation about how the system works. One can then formulate plan for when it doesn't. The fact that it's imperfect at a formal level is academically interesting, but technically irrelevant for a LOT of conversations where it has utility.

sgift 3y ago
Agreed. Sure, you can expand it with PACELC, but the important part is that you have something which starts the conversation/thinking about the fact that distributed systems have specific requirements and challenges. And CAP is sufficient for that.
- throw0101d 3y ago
  TIL: > In theoretical computer science, the PACELC theorem is an extension to the CAP theorem. It states that in case of network partitioning (P) in a distributed computer system, one has to choose between availability (A) and consistency (C) (as per the CAP theorem), but else (E), even when the system is running normally in the absence of partitions, one has to choose between latency (L) and loss of consistency (C). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACELC_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACELC_theorem
tootie 3y ago
My first thought was The Structure of Scientific Revolution. CAP was a very useful theory on top of which years of research were done until the paradigm was broken and replaced. That's how progress works. It doesn't mean CAP was a scam it was our very good first draft at formalizing distributed database theory. And the fact that we still talk about it is proof of that.
jameshart 3y ago
Fundamental principles often just formally state the obvious. People who want CAP to be profound and useful are missing the point - it just tells you some things that you might want to try to achieve are provably impossible. Just like Newton’s first law tells you things can’t accelerate without a force (duh) and the first law of thermodynamics tells you you can’t get energy out of a perpetual motion machine (duh) and the pigeonhole principle tells you if you put n things in less than n groups, at least one group has more than one thing in it (duh); CAP tells you you can’t build a distributed, partitionable data system that is 100% consistent and 100% available (duh). It’s not that deep or profound but it is proven and it eliminates a whole class of ideas from meriting further thought because they’re demonstrably impossible. That lets us get on with making the most of what is possible.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ithinkso 3y ago
  Your 'duh's escalated quite quickly, I had a Euclid postulates feelings when reading it - first four are 'duh' and then the fifth one comes swinging. (by the way I think you have your Newton's law order wrong, that's the second one you're referering to)
  - jameshart 3y ago
    First law (inertia) basically states that in the absence of a force, no acceleration can happen (sometimes stated as ‘an object in motion will remain in motion, an object at rest will remain at rest’). Second law gets more specific, and clarifies that the size of the acceleration is proportional to the size of the force.
antivir 3y ago
[dead]

sgift 3y ago

Agreed. Sure, you can expand it with PACELC, but the important part is that you have something which starts the conversation/thinking about the fact that distributed systems have specific requirements and challenges. And CAP is sufficient for that.

throw0101d 3y ago
TIL: > In theoretical computer science, the PACELC theorem is an extension to the CAP theorem. It states that in case of network partitioning (P) in a distributed computer system, one has to choose between availability (A) and consistency (C) (as per the CAP theorem), but else (E), even when the system is running normally in the absence of partitions, one has to choose between latency (L) and loss of consistency (C). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACELC_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACELC_theorem

tootie 3y ago

My first thought was The Structure of Scientific Revolution. CAP was a very useful theory on top of which years of research were done until the paradigm was broken and replaced. That's how progress works. It doesn't mean CAP was a scam it was our very good first draft at formalizing distributed database theory. And the fact that we still talk about it is proof of that.

jameshart 3y ago

Fundamental principles often just formally state the obvious. People who want CAP to be profound and useful are missing the point - it just tells you some things that you might want to try to achieve are provably impossible. Just like Newton’s first law tells you things can’t accelerate without a force (duh) and the first law of thermodynamics tells you you can’t get energy out of a perpetual motion machine (duh) and the pigeonhole principle tells you if you put n things in less than n groups, at least one group has more than one thing in it (duh); CAP tells you you can’t build a distributed, partitionable data system that is 100% consistent and 100% available (duh). It’s not that deep or profound but it is proven and it eliminates a whole class of ideas from meriting further thought because they’re demonstrably impossible. That lets us get on with making the most of what is possible.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ithinkso 3y ago
Your 'duh's escalated quite quickly, I had a Euclid postulates feelings when reading it - first four are 'duh' and then the fifth one comes swinging. (by the way I think you have your Newton's law order wrong, that's the second one you're referering to)
- jameshart 3y ago
  First law (inertia) basically states that in the absence of a force, no acceleration can happen (sometimes stated as ‘an object in motion will remain in motion, an object at rest will remain at rest’). Second law gets more specific, and clarifies that the size of the acceleration is proportional to the size of the force.

antivir 3y ago

[dead]