3 ms·

The old adage "fixing a bug introduces at least two more" comes to mind. Now fully automated! ;) But seriously: autogenerating fixes as observed by fuzzing doe

The old adage "fixing a bug introduces at least two more" comes to mind. Now fully automated! ;) But seriously: autogenerating fixes as observed by fuzzing does sound cool.

collyw 11y ago
So do "schemaless databases".
- roflc0ptic 11y ago
  Okay are schemaless databases really such a bad idea? Where does the hate come from? I just implemented an EAV based system and it was and remains terrible, but the requirements were to allow users to create arbitrary fields, and to use MySQL. It seems like mongodb/(xyz norel system) would have been such a better choice. I don't know what other options exist. In our case I think it was blind fear that drove the decision not to use mongo, but I see enough people talking them down...
- robmccoll 11y ago
  "Schemaless databases" are cool. I would rather maintain as little schema as possible in the database and instead keep it in my code. Schema must exist somewhere because my data model exists. Since the data model and my program are tightly coupled (since the entire point of the program is to manipulate internal data state due to external and internal stimulus and produce output), keeping them together makes the overall system manageable versus the headache of effectively having code in two places. This is similar for complicated routing configurations pushed to proxies and other external config. They are really part of your code.
  - MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
    If you can specify those invariants in your code in a concise and declarative way, minimizing the chance for bugs, then great. Thats not how it usually works though. Also, how do you want to perform foreign key checks outside of the db in a way thats fast?
    - carapace 11y ago
      "If you can specify those invariants in your code in a concise and declarative way" ...then you've got a schema. ;-)
  - collyw 11y ago
    Try programming that way for a few more years. It will wear you down.

The old adage "fixing a bug introduces at least two more" comes to mind. Now fully automated! ;) But seriously: autogenerating fixes as observed by fuzzing does sound cool.

collyw 11y ago

So do "schemaless databases".

roflc0ptic 11y ago
Okay are schemaless databases really such a bad idea? Where does the hate come from? I just implemented an EAV based system and it was and remains terrible, but the requirements were to allow users to create arbitrary fields, and to use MySQL. It seems like mongodb/(xyz norel system) would have been such a better choice. I don't know what other options exist. In our case I think it was blind fear that drove the decision not to use mongo, but I see enough people talking them down...
robmccoll 11y ago
"Schemaless databases" are cool. I would rather maintain as little schema as possible in the database and instead keep it in my code. Schema must exist somewhere because my data model exists. Since the data model and my program are tightly coupled (since the entire point of the program is to manipulate internal data state due to external and internal stimulus and produce output), keeping them together makes the overall system manageable versus the headache of effectively having code in two places. This is similar for complicated routing configurations pushed to proxies and other external config. They are really part of your code.
- MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
  If you can specify those invariants in your code in a concise and declarative way, minimizing the chance for bugs, then great. Thats not how it usually works though. Also, how do you want to perform foreign key checks outside of the db in a way thats fast?
  - carapace 11y ago
    "If you can specify those invariants in your code in a concise and declarative way" ...then you've got a schema. ;-)
- collyw 11y ago
  Try programming that way for a few more years. It will wear you down.