At a point the negative impact takes a toll on your productivity all week long.
We aren't robots. Having a late night today effects my work tomorrow.
2,363 karma · joined February 7, 2014
We aren't robots. Having a late night today effects my work tomorrow.
I wouldn't say what I built was a better ORM. But I would 100% say it's a better solution to the problem I faced.
It didn't get in the way of writing SQL, but it did reduce the boilerplate and repetitive gruntwork.
"Issues" - no, it was a function call deep and incredibly clear and close to what was happening.
I've used hand rolled pseudo ORMs before.
I prefer just plain SQL but for the application I had there was a common access pattern that was worth abstracting out in a DRY sense.
That doesn't mean I want or need a complete ORM. Just a consistent access at certain table types.
It also sounds like you would be well served using a service abstraction at that point to remove the data layer from client scope entirely.
The "model changes, now we have to change it every where" isn't going to be solved by abstraction, it's only limited by the amount you're willing to limit access to the underlying model, if you need that information, you need to share the model.
The best solution to this I've seen in practice is domain modelling, colocating shared code near other users. When things get too distant you start using anti corruption layers which allows more flexible model changing.
But at the end of the day this is essential complexity, orm, or any other solution is never going to be able to hide the fact that you need information elsewhere in the system to be useful.
> Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon claimed that independent contracting amounts to “corporations trying to oppress workers.” He continued with, “When you hear about folks talking about the new economy, the gig economy, and the innovation economy, it’s fucking feudalism, all over again.”
I think if you take a look over the wiki page [1], he's probably talking about the similarity between classes. It's also in context about more than just the gig economy. And it's also in reference to what people are saying, the way they talk about it, and the way they are selling it to other people. Not talking about the gig economy itself as a concept.
People forget the past all too easily. It took a lot to get us the protections we have today. Giving them up so easily is a mistake.
For those thinking this is overreach and stifling innovation you need to look back at history and realise the same thing could be said about many commonplace workers rights that you take for granted now.
It's a method useful for startups only.
Businesses who have moved on from startup status need to switch to a quality first approach.
Deprecation should only be on the table if your original design was flawed. And then only if you are certain you are fixing that particular design flaw completely. So many times have I seen rewrites due to a poor design just create the same design flaw in the new system as a compromise because changing the database would be too hard.
And even then, I strongly question the need for isolation/deprecation like this. It says a lot about your company and creates a broken windows atmosphere where it's ok to push shit because it will eventually be replaced anyway.
"Wanting typescript" is a shitty excuse for putting a business critical system up for adoption.
Literally nobody will want to deal with it within a year. After that, your business critical function, likely one that makes money, is no longer maintained and impossible to change.
Enjoy your growth stagnation.
Could be a few reasons, could be boring metrics, could be anticompetitive identification of acquisition targets, could be oppo research, could be user profiling.
None of these things I'm ok with Facebook getting off my phone.
> Usually copyright infringement focuses on distribution for piracy and/or fraudulent sales — this is neither.
I'm not sure what you mean. Copyright infringement is the act of infringing on one's copyright. It's not a question of focus.
Copyright law does focus on certain aspects of it but it's not up to Facebook to decide when it's copyright and when it's not. The law is pretty clear here.
This is clearly distribution and clearly not licensed copying.
The purpose here is largely irrelevant.
Further, this is clearly unauthorised access and removal of user data. This is quite likely a criminal act under US hacking laws.
Users aren't given the right to distribute their copies.
Is this also why we don't just get ripped apart during one of these ripple events which are probably all around us as gravitational noise?
I wonder if this is why seemingly tiny vessels can cross large oceans just as easily as larger ones.
I think a lot of people have rose tinted glasses on and simply don't remember how simple the game used to be and how far it's evolved since.
I am curious what they've done with the mechanics though. Some were broken by expacs, some were fixed, wonder what they rolled back and what they left.
Giving this right to consumers is equal to taking it away. Carriers will simply make you sign a waiver on signup that lets them take whatever they want anyway.
You may think that market competition will weed those carriers out by my dollars voting elsewhere but I'm pretty sure it won't, at least not in my lifetime, if ever, given how many people gladly sign over not only their data but my data as well to places like Facebook every day.
ISPs are required to give estimated primetime speeds you can expect for a given plan.
E.g. for my 100mbs plan, they tell me that in my area, I can expect 82mbs during evening peak.
We also have some ISPs who are being transparent about over provisioning and even go as far as stopping selling into an area until they acquire more bandwidth into a node.
More on topic, this is being caused by companies milking their old networks unwilling to upgrade.
I suspect it is due to execs believing their underlings when they're told their network upgrades were supposed to alleviate capacity problems at a great cost.
Fact is, usage is evolving, go to somewhere like south Korea and YouTube streaming 4k on your phone during your commute is the norm. People have the bandwidth there, and they use it.
Here, people don't have the bandwidth, so they don't, but they would.
ISPs don't seem to realise this and think it's a select few ruining the service for the whole with their pesky streaming. When really it's just changing customer needs and reluctance to serve.
Kafka is not going to replace MySQL specifically because it depends on the task at hand.
If you can't replace MySQL with Kafka, then why not just stick with whatever queue/jobs/stream infra you had before kafka. At least those solutions are quite limited in scope and easily replaceable.
At this point Kafka is a solution looking for a problem.
Or are you just trying to take this out of context because of a casual tone?
I honestly don't see the draw for Kafka. And by all means I get it, I just don't buy it. Maybe I'm just holding it wrong or something.
With weak arguments like those it seems it's not a very good one..
What cost is involved by not embedding third party bescons on your website?
How does it not improve consumer protections? It's literally stopping doing the thing that is causing harm.
> “With its decision, the ECJ places enormous responsibility on thousands of website operators – from small travel blogs to online megastores and the portals of large publishers,” Bitkom CEA Bernard Rohleder said.
Yes, this is exactly how serious this situation is. I'm glad you're getting a handle on just how damn huge this problem really is. Aren't you glad we're finally doing something about it?
> He warned that the decision would go beyond Facebook and effect all social media plug ins, which are important for many firms to expand their reach on the web
Uh, yes, that's the the idea? Your firm's right to expand their reach does not overrule my right to privacy.
People can still share and like your links on the social platforms. It doesn't require me to be forced into it.
https://youtu.be/o_TH-Y78tt4 starting at around 10:30 he gets into what I was getting at.
> Whereas I'd say Laravel and it's ecosystem are far more productive and time saving than simply using just PHP.
I'm not arguing a time thing.
I'm arguing that a framework that forces its architecture onto your domain model is fundamentally broken by design. My domain should drive architecture choices and the framework should let me augment that with well worn libraries and modular patterns.
Laravels architecture works for one thing: web sites. And for that, you're better off using WordPress.
Laravel is better than older frameworks, like say, code igniter but it still fights you every step of the way if you want to step outside the box.
We're not talking usefulness here we are talking about clean code.
Architecture is not only correlated but causal in this situation.
It's over architecture is the problem. It's nano functions are a positive side effect but don't change the indirection problems you face.
That thing is the epitome of a framework for frameworks sake.
Pretty sure Most of Martin's talks begin by complaining about this sort of thing?