3 ms·

Congratulations on arbitrarily incrementing a version number? I really don't understand why anyone would be willing to use something like this for anything bey

Congratulations on arbitrarily incrementing a version number? I really don't understand why anyone would be willing to use something like this for anything beyond a toy website. I would be very wary of using a closed source commercial database for any core infrastructure, I can't imagine a scenario where I would be willing to use any kind of 'highly proprietary database as a service'. It's vendor lock of the worst kind.

corylehey 13y ago
you clearly haven't used firebase
Afforess 13y ago
Firebase can take over having to use server side cookies & site settings for each user. You can use an oAuth login and then sync their settings to the firebase backend. That's how I've used it, with great success. Firebase makes it possible to make a fully-featured and complex website with pure HTML/CSS/JS and no big backend crap (looks at PHP/MySQL)
- justin_vanw 13y ago
  I'm not saying you can't get value out of it. If your website is very simple, or not very valuable, then use whatever gets it done nicely. However, if you are doing anything serious or valuable or even moderately complex, locking into a single vendor like this is a bad decision. You can go along fine, but sooner or later you will need to do something that is just not possible inside of the proprietary system. At that point, you are either going to have to jump ship and reimplement features (introducing regressions and wasting development time), or try to convince the vendor to make changes to enable you, or give up. You are handing over a lot of power to someone and in exchange paying them a lot of money. I'm not saying it's never a good decision, I'm saying if there were something my company depended on to function, I would think very hard before I chose a solution that permanently locked me into a single vendor.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - ronaldx 13y ago
    Here's some violent agreement... I think this is a great product - if I am building a site, I want to concentrate on building features for that without first building technical bleeding-edge interaction from the ground up. Sooner or later I may want to do something with this that isn't possible in the proprietary system, yes (although that's not guaranteed at the starting point). If I get to that point with traction and money to invest, I probably would do exactly what you suggest, i.e. build a bespoke solution. And, in that case, since the Firebase system acts as a modular component, refactoring this solution might even be a better option than refactoring a messy roll-your-own solution.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jamest 13y ago
[Firebase Founder] Hi Justin, we're pretty excited about leaving beta and think it's fairly significant. Building robust infrastructure isn't an easy task and this change is meant to signal that we're ready for primetime. I hope that comes across! If you're worried about lock-in, I'd first try Firebase along with our AngularJS[1] or Backbone[2] bindings. You don't have to change the way you write your app and can switch Firebase our for another backend easily. We recognize that we're only going to win a developer's trust by building a reliable service with the best tools and fair pricing -- so this is what we're going to do I'd love to dispel any concerns, please feel free to email me anytime (james at firebase) [1] https://github.com/firebase/angularFire https://github.com/firebase/angularFire [2] https://github.com/firebase/backfire https://github.com/firebase/backfire
- justin_vanw 13y ago
  Hi James, thanks for the thoughtful reply to my grumpy trolling. I can at least tell you what would dispel my concerns: 1. Some kind of death-rattle clause. If your company doesn't make it or shuts down this service, all the code necessary to set up the service would be released under a permissive license, something like that. 2. The ability, even if it had a high cost ($100k a year or something crazy), to license the source to the engine that powers Firebase and deploy a modified version (obviously just for our own use). I think those two things would mean that if I were making decisions on the technical direction of a company or large project, I wouldn't feel like Firebase might suddenly cause a major disruption in the future. At least if there were a major incident or insurmountable problem with the service, we could bring it in house and proceed without having to go back and re-engineer all the previous work.
  - taude 13y ago
    I'd think you'd use a service like Firebase in much the same way people outsource IT infrastructure to the cloud. Eventually you reach a scale that it pays to bring the infrastructure in house. That might/might not happen with your product. Also, there's a lot of products where you're not going to care about 95% of the data in a few years anyway - trendy games maybe? Anyway, I'm intrigued about the idea around Firefbase for allowing people to quickly start executing on their ideas and focus on what seems to matter a lot these days, the front-end. I'm also appreciative of the AngularJS bindings....will definitely make me check this out...
xauronx 13y ago
"Congratulations on arbitrarily incrementing a version number?" ... Such a shitty attitude. I give the guy from firebase who replied to you credit for not being snarky when your comment started with that ignorance.
- justin_vanw 13y ago
  Are you saying that there is a non-arbitrary criterion to when '-beta' is removed from a product's logo? If not, then it is arbitrary, and acting like it is a milestone is purely a PR move, an attempt to make noise and create interest without any substantive event which would justify calling renewed attention to the thing, all for personal financial gain. In other words, it is an attempt to manipulate people for money. I'm all for manipulating people to make money, but I hardly think you can fault me for pointing it out.
  - xauronx 13y ago
    I think there's something to be celebrated about finally standing up and saying "OK! This is done enough to call it done". As a software creator it feels great. Software is never truly finished but taking that step and declaring it a released product is something. I'm never going to convince you of that, I know. You're obviously a "this glass sucks, whatever it's half full of sucks and whatever used to be in the other half of it sucked too" kind of guy.
  - mentos 13y ago
    A journey of a thousand miles ends with a single step.
  - BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
    When a developer-facing API goes "stable", it is a signal for the developers who might use that API that it is no longer subject to changes and that it's ready to be used in production. This is very different from, say, removing the "Beta" status from Gmail, because it meaningfully impacts the audience.

corylehey 13y ago

you clearly haven't used firebase

Afforess 13y ago

Firebase can take over having to use server side cookies & site settings for each user. You can use an oAuth login and then sync their settings to the firebase backend. That's how I've used it, with great success. Firebase makes it possible to make a fully-featured and complex website with pure HTML/CSS/JS and no big backend crap (looks at PHP/MySQL)

justin_vanw 13y ago
I'm not saying you can't get value out of it. If your website is very simple, or not very valuable, then use whatever gets it done nicely. However, if you are doing anything serious or valuable or even moderately complex, locking into a single vendor like this is a bad decision. You can go along fine, but sooner or later you will need to do something that is just not possible inside of the proprietary system. At that point, you are either going to have to jump ship and reimplement features (introducing regressions and wasting development time), or try to convince the vendor to make changes to enable you, or give up. You are handing over a lot of power to someone and in exchange paying them a lot of money. I'm not saying it's never a good decision, I'm saying if there were something my company depended on to function, I would think very hard before I chose a solution that permanently locked me into a single vendor.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- ronaldx 13y ago
  Here's some violent agreement... I think this is a great product - if I am building a site, I want to concentrate on building features for that without first building technical bleeding-edge interaction from the ground up. Sooner or later I may want to do something with this that isn't possible in the proprietary system, yes (although that's not guaranteed at the starting point). If I get to that point with traction and money to invest, I probably would do exactly what you suggest, i.e. build a bespoke solution. And, in that case, since the Firebase system acts as a modular component, refactoring this solution might even be a better option than refactoring a messy roll-your-own solution.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

jamest 13y ago

[Firebase Founder] Hi Justin, we're pretty excited about leaving beta and think it's fairly significant. Building robust infrastructure isn't an easy task and this change is meant to signal that we're ready for primetime. I hope that comes across! If you're worried about lock-in, I'd first try Firebase along with our AngularJS[1] or Backbone[2] bindings. You don't have to change the way you write your app and can switch Firebase our for another backend easily. We recognize that we're only going to win a developer's trust by building a reliable service with the best tools and fair pricing -- so this is what we're going to do I'd love to dispel any concerns, please feel free to email me anytime (james at firebase) [1] https://github.com/firebase/angularFire https://github.com/firebase/angularFire [2] https://github.com/firebase/backfire https://github.com/firebase/backfire

justin_vanw 13y ago
Hi James, thanks for the thoughtful reply to my grumpy trolling. I can at least tell you what would dispel my concerns: 1. Some kind of death-rattle clause. If your company doesn't make it or shuts down this service, all the code necessary to set up the service would be released under a permissive license, something like that. 2. The ability, even if it had a high cost ($100k a year or something crazy), to license the source to the engine that powers Firebase and deploy a modified version (obviously just for our own use). I think those two things would mean that if I were making decisions on the technical direction of a company or large project, I wouldn't feel like Firebase might suddenly cause a major disruption in the future. At least if there were a major incident or insurmountable problem with the service, we could bring it in house and proceed without having to go back and re-engineer all the previous work.
- taude 13y ago
  I'd think you'd use a service like Firebase in much the same way people outsource IT infrastructure to the cloud. Eventually you reach a scale that it pays to bring the infrastructure in house. That might/might not happen with your product. Also, there's a lot of products where you're not going to care about 95% of the data in a few years anyway - trendy games maybe? Anyway, I'm intrigued about the idea around Firefbase for allowing people to quickly start executing on their ideas and focus on what seems to matter a lot these days, the front-end. I'm also appreciative of the AngularJS bindings....will definitely make me check this out...

xauronx 13y ago

"Congratulations on arbitrarily incrementing a version number?" ... Such a shitty attitude. I give the guy from firebase who replied to you credit for not being snarky when your comment started with that ignorance.

justin_vanw 13y ago
Are you saying that there is a non-arbitrary criterion to when '-beta' is removed from a product's logo? If not, then it is arbitrary, and acting like it is a milestone is purely a PR move, an attempt to make noise and create interest without any substantive event which would justify calling renewed attention to the thing, all for personal financial gain. In other words, it is an attempt to manipulate people for money. I'm all for manipulating people to make money, but I hardly think you can fault me for pointing it out.
- xauronx 13y ago
  I think there's something to be celebrated about finally standing up and saying "OK! This is done enough to call it done". As a software creator it feels great. Software is never truly finished but taking that step and declaring it a released product is something. I'm never going to convince you of that, I know. You're obviously a "this glass sucks, whatever it's half full of sucks and whatever used to be in the other half of it sucked too" kind of guy.
- mentos 13y ago
  A journey of a thousand miles ends with a single step.
- BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
  When a developer-facing API goes "stable", it is a signal for the developers who might use that API that it is no longer subject to changes and that it's ready to be used in production. This is very different from, say, removing the "Beta" status from Gmail, because it meaningfully impacts the audience.