4 ms·

when will people learn - you're not Facebook, or will never likely reach facebook scale. Graphql, Relay, React were things etc made for Facebook at facebook sca

by dzonga 2y ago

when will people learn - you're not Facebook, or will never likely reach facebook scale. Graphql, Relay, React were things etc made for Facebook at facebook scale i.e whether that's in terms of engineers, resources or actual tech problems. There's plenty of other sites / services that receive almost as close to FB properties in terms of traffic yet you never hear them pushing all those tools. Trading firms, Porn firms etc. Some just use REST + JSON or RPC + JSON. Wish us an industry would read Joel's Spolsky's Fire and Motion article: While you're fighting tools built by FB you're not making stuff for your customers. Revenue / Profit >> Tech

yonixwm 2y ago
That’s the problem. In the days of jQuery/Angular2 (and even now personally), React was a blessing. Everyone hoped the same here. We should just join technology a little later on the hype cycle and have less stress.
- BiteCode_dev 2y ago
  React was a blessing for the few creating apps that needed more than jquery, and that AngularJS 1 couldn't handle for perfs reason. That was actually a very small parts of the projects in the world at the time, and in fact, a very small part of the number of projects that adopted react at the time. I remember above all that: - React was hyped to the roof by facebook. They had a fantastic marketing machinery for that. - React sucked for years, with a terrible doc, a crippling webpack experience and breaking compact all the time. - The JS community was moving from koolaid to koolaid, never assessing the new tech for their cost. They solely inflicted on the world slow and brittle preprocessors left and right, thousands of stuff you had to integrate manually because "libs > frameworks", and jumped on react, redux, graphql, docker, spa, microservices. So I would say it was a loooot of hype for react, just like it was for graphql. I'm going to feel like spamming at this point, but, remember when XML was the future? https://www.bitecode.dev/p/hype-cycles https://www.bitecode.dev/p/hype-cycles
  - strken 2y ago
    XML was genuinely better than fix-width data formats (COBOL) or character-separated fields (CSV, HL7) for most APIs. Hierarchical deeply nested trees of data were the future. Everyone uses JSON or a more industrial format like protobuf/avro/BSON to represent such data now, but it wasn't necessarily wrong to point at XML and say it was an improvement.
    - friendzis 2y ago
      The problem with XML is precisely that it is so much more than simple hierarchical, nested trees of data. The fact that in a casual conversation XML is reduced to hierarchical trees of data pretending the rest of XML does not exist more than proves OP's point.
      - strken 2y ago
        I'm not pretending anything and I hate XML. I would still rather use it than HL7, because it's a hierarchical tree of data and HL7 is not. OP's point is that almost nobody wants to use XML anymore; my point is that almost nobody wants a Ford Model T as their daily driver anymore either, and yet it was still the future, in a certain sense.
        whitten 2y ago
        Do you think FHIR is acceptable? It feels like a cross between JSON and HL7 to me.
        strken 2y ago
        I quite like FHIR. My experience with using it has been that everyone seems to implement it slightly differently, but it does a better job at being human-readable. It was much easier for us and our partners to work with than regular HL7. Some things were a bit weird. From memory it had big lists of records all mixed together as the implementation of references.
        2y ago
projectileboy 2y ago
Exaaaactly. I worked on big systems at a very large retailer, and at a very large bank, and in each case, there were reasons why GraphQL worked very well for us. But 90+% of developers across the world adopt tools and technologies because they look fun and shiny, not because they need it. For the overwhelming majority of developers (who in most cases are working at medium-to-large-sized companies on internally-facing apps with a small number of users) a simple web app stack from 2005 will serve you quite nicely.
- dopylitty 2y ago
  I wonder if this phenomenon happens in other industries as well. I can't imagine a road crew getting away with spending an extra year to build a road because they decided to use completely nonstandard equipment that doesn't work well for the task or they don't know how to operate. I especially can't imagine the road crew screwing up multiple jobs in a row because they change equipment every time they're starting to understand the current equipment. Maybe it does happen though and I just haven't seen it since I'm not in that industry.
  - swader999 2y ago
    Construction is always the wrong metaphor for sw dev. Think more like marketing campaign or product design.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - randomdata 2y ago
    I don't know about construction, but as a farmer it's pretty natural to look at what your neighbours are doing and if they adopt a new technology in their operation you're at least going to give some thought to doing the same. But I think it comes with a lot more reluctance and skepticism. You are not likely to jump in head over heels, and even when you do give it a try I expect most farmers will do so with the attitude of "if it doesn't work at least I can always go back to the old way". The "OMG this is amazing and will solve all of my life's problems" attitude I see in tech certainly isn't there in my experience.
Jeema101 2y ago
I think an aggravating factor in the software world (that's maybe not as prevalent in other fields), is that developers tend to want to use the latest and newest technologies, even if said technology is not really appropriate for the task. It looks good on your resume to say that you used the same technology Facebook uses - the ol' "resume driven development".
- herpdyderp 2y ago
  You also usually need to actually try out a new technology to know if it’s going to help you. Less “must use the latest tech” and more “let’s see if this latest tech is helpful”. Of course, both happen.
- the_real_cher 2y ago
  Jobs ASK for that B.S. Instead of hiring a generally capable person that can learn everything during an on ramping. So devs respond in kind with equal amounts of bullshit. It's a cycle of bullshit in the industry.

by dzonga 2y ago

yonixwm 2y ago

That’s the problem. In the days of jQuery/Angular2 (and even now personally), React was a blessing. Everyone hoped the same here. We should just join technology a little later on the hype cycle and have less stress.

BiteCode_dev 2y ago
React was a blessing for the few creating apps that needed more than jquery, and that AngularJS 1 couldn't handle for perfs reason. That was actually a very small parts of the projects in the world at the time, and in fact, a very small part of the number of projects that adopted react at the time. I remember above all that: - React was hyped to the roof by facebook. They had a fantastic marketing machinery for that. - React sucked for years, with a terrible doc, a crippling webpack experience and breaking compact all the time. - The JS community was moving from koolaid to koolaid, never assessing the new tech for their cost. They solely inflicted on the world slow and brittle preprocessors left and right, thousands of stuff you had to integrate manually because "libs > frameworks", and jumped on react, redux, graphql, docker, spa, microservices. So I would say it was a loooot of hype for react, just like it was for graphql. I'm going to feel like spamming at this point, but, remember when XML was the future? https://www.bitecode.dev/p/hype-cycles https://www.bitecode.dev/p/hype-cycles
- strken 2y ago
  XML was genuinely better than fix-width data formats (COBOL) or character-separated fields (CSV, HL7) for most APIs. Hierarchical deeply nested trees of data were the future. Everyone uses JSON or a more industrial format like protobuf/avro/BSON to represent such data now, but it wasn't necessarily wrong to point at XML and say it was an improvement.
  - friendzis 2y ago
    The problem with XML is precisely that it is so much more than simple hierarchical, nested trees of data. The fact that in a casual conversation XML is reduced to hierarchical trees of data pretending the rest of XML does not exist more than proves OP's point.
    - strken 2y ago
      I'm not pretending anything and I hate XML. I would still rather use it than HL7, because it's a hierarchical tree of data and HL7 is not. OP's point is that almost nobody wants to use XML anymore; my point is that almost nobody wants a Ford Model T as their daily driver anymore either, and yet it was still the future, in a certain sense.
      - whitten 2y ago
        Do you think FHIR is acceptable? It feels like a cross between JSON and HL7 to me.
        strken 2y ago
        I quite like FHIR. My experience with using it has been that everyone seems to implement it slightly differently, but it does a better job at being human-readable. It was much easier for us and our partners to work with than regular HL7. Some things were a bit weird. From memory it had big lists of records all mixed together as the implementation of references.
      - 2y ago

projectileboy 2y ago

Exaaaactly. I worked on big systems at a very large retailer, and at a very large bank, and in each case, there were reasons why GraphQL worked very well for us. But 90+% of developers across the world adopt tools and technologies because they look fun and shiny, not because they need it. For the overwhelming majority of developers (who in most cases are working at medium-to-large-sized companies on internally-facing apps with a small number of users) a simple web app stack from 2005 will serve you quite nicely.

dopylitty 2y ago
I wonder if this phenomenon happens in other industries as well. I can't imagine a road crew getting away with spending an extra year to build a road because they decided to use completely nonstandard equipment that doesn't work well for the task or they don't know how to operate. I especially can't imagine the road crew screwing up multiple jobs in a row because they change equipment every time they're starting to understand the current equipment. Maybe it does happen though and I just haven't seen it since I'm not in that industry.
- swader999 2y ago
  Construction is always the wrong metaphor for sw dev. Think more like marketing campaign or product design.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- randomdata 2y ago
  I don't know about construction, but as a farmer it's pretty natural to look at what your neighbours are doing and if they adopt a new technology in their operation you're at least going to give some thought to doing the same. But I think it comes with a lot more reluctance and skepticism. You are not likely to jump in head over heels, and even when you do give it a try I expect most farmers will do so with the attitude of "if it doesn't work at least I can always go back to the old way". The "OMG this is amazing and will solve all of my life's problems" attitude I see in tech certainly isn't there in my experience.

Jeema101 2y ago

I think an aggravating factor in the software world (that's maybe not as prevalent in other fields), is that developers tend to want to use the latest and newest technologies, even if said technology is not really appropriate for the task. It looks good on your resume to say that you used the same technology Facebook uses - the ol' "resume driven development".

herpdyderp 2y ago
You also usually need to actually try out a new technology to know if it’s going to help you. Less “must use the latest tech” and more “let’s see if this latest tech is helpful”. Of course, both happen.
the_real_cher 2y ago
Jobs ASK for that B.S. Instead of hiring a generally capable person that can learn everything during an on ramping. So devs respond in kind with equal amounts of bullshit. It's a cycle of bullshit in the industry.