←back to thread

628 points kiyanwang | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | 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 #
pc86 ◴[] No.43633292[source]
The problem is that for every example like yours where you run into very specific ORM edge cases, and seems completely reasonable, there are about 95 where a story like this is used as justification to spend months building something when a library would have actually worked out just fine and been implemented in weeks or days. And that running into these edge cases is used as justification for "throw the ORM out" not "don't use the ORM for this particular class of query."

One of my favorite features of Entity Framework from my .NET days is that it's very easy to just break out of the ORM functionality, even from within an EF-specific function, or to have multiple instances with slightly different configuration (I never had to do that last bit but I know it was possible a decade ago).

replies(3): >>43633699 #>>43638833 #>>43654183 #
1. yndoendo ◴[] No.43654183[source]
The original designer for my most active product I work on choose EntityFramework. Used it for about 1.5 years before looking at the SQL statements it produced. It was a excessive UNION mess. Things that should be simple where 10x more complex.

Slowly replaced it with Dapper and handwritten SQL, a simple migration versioning system, and database seeding with validation. Once that was done, startup time was cut by more than 10 seconds on a standard SSD and about 30 on CFast. Even finally replacing the database connection with SQLite standard libraries shaved off 2 seconds.

EntityFramework maybe useful but it lacks performance when time to start using the software is important.