4 ms·
I like how you didn't even ask for any context that would help you evaluate whether or not their chosen architecture is actually suitable for their environment
by latentsea 1y ago
I like how you didn't even ask for any context that would help you evaluate whether or not their chosen architecture is actually suitable for their environment before just blurting out advice that may or may not be applicable (though you would have no idea, not having enquired).
- const_cast 1y agoMuch like parallel programming, distributed systems have a very small window of requirement. Really less than 1% of systems need to be distributed. Are you Google? No? Then you probably don't need it. The rest is just for fun. Or, well, pain. Usually pain.
- latentsea 1y agoI like how you didn't even enquire as to what size organisation they worked in order to determine if it might actually be applicable in their case.
- const_cast 1y agoI never said it was applicable to them, in fact I said the opposite: > Obviously that ship has sailed for you, but I mean in the general sense. In the general sense, no, you don't need a distributed system. Even if you have billions of dollars worth of revenue - no, you don't need a distributed system. I know, because I've worked on monoliths that service hundreds of thousands of users and generate billions in revenue. If you're making YouTube, maybe you need a distributed system. Are you making YouTube? Probably not. You can, of course, choose to make a distributed system anyway. If you want to decrease your development velocity 1000x and introduce unbelievable amounts of complexity and risk.
- latentsea 1y agoWe're there at least 1000 engineers working on that system you worked on?
- const_cast 1y agoYes, 1500 or so.