Yeah I have long felt that if we think we need gradle, we should consider doing less crazy stuff in our build. Maven is plenty and any time I get back to a repo that has that instead of gradle or sbt I’m much happier.
Is your disinterest in LiveView because you'd prefer the more common SPA/API separation, or some other reason? I'm curious because as a mostly backend engineer I view LiveView as sort of a killer tool for the sorts of apps or tools I'm likely to build.
This is both a fair response and isn’t! The OP was talking about typical Java stuff you’ll encounter, which is overwhelmingly spring boot. But I also agree that you can do much better than that for resource usage if you’re willing to avoid the common defaults the community has embraced.
This was also true of Amazon's Leadership Principles. They are pretty reasonable guidelines, but in a debate, it really came down to which one you could most reasonably weaponize in favor of your argument, even to the detriment of several others.
Engineers also wrote good code before AI. We don't get to pretend that the speed increase of AI only increases the output of quality code - it also allows engineers to send much more crap!
Ha, I can relate WRT Python. I've been doing more Elixir these days for both a really pleasant web experience and because it has some unique primitives baked into the ecosystem that most JVM projects I work on spend a lot of time approximating through grotesque frameworks.
Good advice that I keep trying to adopt myself, but I have to confess a large personal bias for languages that I like, even if it keeps me from certain classes of problem (I like Ruby, though).
What did you move onto for those next things you started building?
> It is the best idea. This should be the standard. And nothing prevents you from rolling back an individual service. You can still do that. And you can still do individual deploys too. But these are just for patch ups.
There are a ton of reasons it's not the best idea. This flies in the face of a lot of _better_ ideas.
Keeping changesets small so that it's easier to debug when something goes wrong? Blown out of the water by deploying everything at once.
Bringing every service up at once is a great way to create the coldest version of your entire product.
Requiring a monodeployment turns canarying or A/B testing entire classes of changes into a blocking rollout where any other feature work has to move at the pace of the slowest change.
> When you roll back an individual service your entire system is no longer in a valid state. It's in an interim state of repair.
The gold standard is that each version of your service can work with each other version of your service, because in The Real World your service will spend time in those states.
> Monodeploy should be the gold standard, and individual deploys and roll backs are reserved for emergencies.
No, because if it's still possible to mix versions in your services, then a monodeploy doesn't actually solve any issues.
I actually am a big fan of fewer services and deploying bigger artifacts, but if you have multiple services, you have to act like you have multiple services.
Yeah, I think you're preaching to the choir about static checking, the only point I was making is that monorepo doesn't solve some classes of errors and that I've actually seen it generate false confidence in that realm.
> Simple, although I only mentioned repos should be mono, I should've also said deployment should be mono as well. I thought that was a given.
Deploying your service graph as one atomic unit is not a given, and not necessarily even the best idea - you need to be able to roll back an individual service unless you have very small changes between versions, which means that even if they were rolled out atomically, you still run the risk of mixed versions sets.
Well, no, it doesn't. A monorepo does nothing to prevent you from making breaking changes, it just stops you from making changes that don't compile/test. You still have to understand that services aren't deploying as an atomic unit and make sure that your network calls are forward and backward compatible.
> First put all your services in a monorepo have it all build as one under CI. That’s a static check across the entire system.
There are definitely benefits to this approach. My coworkers do fall into the trap of assuming that all the services will be deployed simultaneously, which is not something you can really guarantee (especially if you have to roll one of them back at some point), so the monorepo approach gives them confidence in some breaking changes that it shouldn't (like adding a new required field).
Go seems to have some enduring affection and popularity for new projects and companies. I recently felt like a lot of the recent shift was less about GC and more about runtime characteristics (static binaries, lean resource consumption, lack of an in-your-face virtual machine).
It never felt like Nim, Pony, or Crystal were ever that popular that a diminished hype cycle registered as something thematic to me (not that I really intend to disagree with your perspective here).
If you have to ask an object what its type is, you're probably about to cast it, and these are operations that the language doesn't enforce that you do together (and so the habit of casting can lead to the habit of casting without the check...). There are times when it's appropriate but generally if you have to ask what type an object is, your code is already starting to smell (because typically dispatching on type is handled by polymorphism, not be the programmer manually implementing it).
I don't think we have to choose. Naturally finding the "right division of labor" is as infinite as finding the "right level of abstraction", but I think the ideal situation is to strive toward code that is easy to test without having to introduce a lot of mocks or without infinite layers of abstraction.
They also encourage/enable code that is less testable. If you use mockito to get your fake responses/assertions where you need them, you don't have to think about your class's dependencies to make your code testable and therefore better decomposed. I don't even do TDD, but I still find that thinking about how I'd test a class guides me toward better-factored code.