←back to thread

628 points kiyanwang | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bob1029 ◴[] No.43630646[source]
Not guessing is perhaps the most important thing to the business.

I developed a lot of my problem solving skills in semiconductor manufacturing where the cost of a bad assumption tends to be astronomical. You need to be able to determine exactly what the root cause is 100% of the time or everything goes to hell really fast. If there isn't a way to figure out the root cause, you now have 2 tickets to resolve.

I'll throw an entire contraption away the moment I determine it has accumulated some opacity that antagonizes root cause analysis. This is why I aggressively avoid use of non-vanilla technology stacks. You can certainly chase the rabbit over the fence into the 3rd party's GitHub repo, but I find the experience gets quite psychedelic as you transition between wildly varying project styles, motivations and scopes.

Being deeply correct nearly all of the time is probably the fastest way to build a reputation. The curve can be exponential over time with the range being the value of the problem you are entrusted with.

replies(5): >>43631055 #>>43631842 #>>43632734 #>>43637040 #>>43638701 #
Taek ◴[] No.43631055[source]
I always get a lot of pushback for avoiding frameworks and libraries, and rolling most things by hand.

But, most frameworks and libraries aren't built to be audit-grade robust, don't have enterprise level compatibility promises, can't guarantee that there won't be suprise performance impacts for arbitrary use cases, etc.

Sometimes, a third party library (like sql-lite) makes the cut. But frameworks and libraries that reach the bar of "this will give me fewer complications than avoiding the dependency" are few and far between.

replies(8): >>43631189 #>>43631275 #>>43631326 #>>43632119 #>>43632384 #>>43635012 #>>43635674 #>>43644940 #
pc86 ◴[] No.43632119[source]
This is smart if you work for a company that actually needs this level of robustness. The problem is that most don't, and a lot of people who work for these companies wish they were working someone "better"/"more important," so they pretend they actually do need this level of performance.

The guy like you on a mission critical team at a cutting edge company is a godsend and will be a big part of why the project/company succeeds. The guy who wants to build his own ORM for his no-name company's CRUD app is wasting everyone's time.

replies(4): >>43632378 #>>43632716 #>>43632815 #>>43658889 #
9rx ◴[] No.43632815[source]
> The guy who wants to build his own ORM for his no-name company's CRUD app is wasting everyone's time.

I once unfortunately joined a project where an off-the-shelf ORM had been selected, but when development was well into the deep edge cases started to reveal serious design flaws in the ORM library. A guy wanting (perhaps not a in a joyful sense, but more not seeing any other choice) to build his own ORM that was mostly API-compatible was what saved the project.

This was a long time ago. The state of ORM libraries is probably a lot better today. But the advice of ensuring that a library is SQLite-grade before committing to it does rings true even for simple CRUD ORMs. Perhaps especially so.

replies(7): >>43633292 #>>43634520 #>>43635035 #>>43637001 #>>43638665 #>>43638768 #>>43658894 #
awkward ◴[] No.43635035[source]
Not to get too off topic, but ORMs are bags of design flaws. They are definitional technical debt, the kind that gets you from proof of concept but needs to be reworked once you get to your target scale.

There are a large number of fundamental impedance mismatches between relational data and object based data. Any ORM can fix some of them at the cost of ignoring others, but the fundamental character of ORMs is such that taking an opinionated line on tough tradeoffs is as good as you can hope for.

This is why ORM guy is wasting everyone's time - his problem is almost definitely not going to have a unique or even valuable perspective on all of those tradeoffs.

replies(2): >>43635196 #>>43637739 #
9rx ◴[] No.43635196[source]
In realistic practice there is no escaping it, though. Even if you maintain relations throughout the majority of your application, you are almost certainly still going to need to call some kind of third-party API or networked service that requires mapping between relations and objects. Especially if networked services are involved as they nearly always eschew relations in favour of objects to avoid the typical n+1 problems.

Should your application map objects and relations at all isn't usually a question you get to ask unless it is doesn't do much or lives on its own private island. Should you do it yourself or lean on a toolkit to help is the question that you have to contend with.

replies(2): >>43635529 #>>43635555 #
awkward ◴[] No.43635529{5}[source]
Oh for sure, they fill huge and consistent gap between most databases and most programming languages. The issue is that they are fundamentally a compromise. That means it's not damning to hear that issues crept in with scale and complexity. It's also rarely practical to take on the project of making a slightly different set of compromises from first principles.
replies(1): >>43635731 #
1. 9rx ◴[] No.43635731{6}[source]
> The issue is that they are fundamentally a compromise.

Which is no doubt why most newer applications I see these days have trended towards carrying relations as far as they can go, only mapping with objects at the points where it is absolutely necessary.

> It's also rarely practical to take on the project of making a slightly different set of compromise

I suppose that is the other benefit of delaying mapping until necessary. What needs to be mapped will be more limited in scope and can be identified as such. You don't have to build a huge framework that can handle all conceivable cases. You can reduce it to only what you need, which is usually not going to be much, and can determine what tradeoffs best suit in that. In this type of situation it is likely that using a ORM library is going to be a bigger waste of time, honestly.