3 ms·
> 25,000 lines of Rust I'd really like to understand why they didn't just also have a small container for this running. The only reasoning given in the article
by sudowood0 3mo ago
> 25,000 lines of Rust
I'd really like to understand why they didn't just also have a small container for this running. The only reasoning given in the article is "another container to run and manage" which Docker compose, TestContainers, etc will make trivial.
If a dev came to me and suggested we go this route I would need to seriously be convinced. They even explicitly call out this is only for local development meaning it's not like this was piggy-backing off of a secondary need for a Rust redis anyways. Insanity.
- pram 3mo agoYeah I agree completely, especially because Redis is one of the easiest things to set up. This feels like the wages of tokenmaxxing lol
- luckystarr 3mo agoThere is a difference between easy to set up and not having to set up anything. It's an improvement in operational UX.
- jagged-chisel 3mo agoThere's a difference between easy to set up and (creating 25,000 lines of code to maintain so that we're) not having to set up anything. I'd call it a net loss.
- luckystarr 3mo agoFair take if the user is the same person as the implementer. If I sell software to my customers that reduces their operational complexity by me investing some code, then I don't consider it a loss.
- ahmetson 3mo agoProgramming is a craft. People like to write things, so you have plenty of solutions: programming languages, frameworks, game engines and more this kind of tool. It’s not bad that they port redis into code. It’s not good thing neither. I’m just worried will they maintain it, did they think about further development that it will take their time, money and energy.
- pjmlp 3mo agoBut then you would not have a reason to write a blog post about how cool the company happens to be. /s