Does this story seem kinda…fake…to anyone else? Like, obviously companies do sometimes make decisions this stupid, but the way this is written seems a little too carefully optimized to make for a morality play of the kind HN enjoys. (And there's a potential motive, since there's a whole bunch of links to paid books and such, somewhat clumsily tied to the main narrative.)
One thing I’ve learned is that you should be wary of spending too much time on things that customers don’t see. Customers don’t care about backend engineering unless it results in benefits they can actually see, and if you spend too long on invisible features they’ll think your platform is stagnant and move somewhere else.
Microservices solve people problem not technical. Till ~20 backend devs no point in moving to it. Monoliths are better in terms of performance, reliability and dev speed.
Ironically posted on Medium, which showed me the text, then blanked the whole screen to replace the text with light grey polyfills, and then showed me the same text again... several seconds later.
That's because Medium is a bunch of APIs and (micro) services, not a monolith like it should be.
Heck, it could be plain static HTML because it's just text for crying out loud!
Instead, it uses a GraphQL query through JSON to obtain the text of the article... that it already sent me in HTML.
Total page weight of 17 MB, of which 6.7 MB is some sort of non-media ("text") document or script.
This is user-hostile architecture astronaut madness, and is so totally normal in the modern internet that nobody even bats and eye when text takes appreciable amounts of time to render on a 6 GHz multi-core computer with 1 Gbps fibre Internet connectivity.
Your customers hate this. Your architects love it because it keeps them employed.
A simple modern Dotnet monolith with Postgres on a Linux server could deliver a much better end user experience, and it probably would take a lot less server resources than the current mess.
Monoliths vs. microservices has nothing to do with server-side rendering vs. GraphQL. Architecturally monolithic Web apps use GraphQL all the time.
I'm not sure why Medium does the weird blanking thing but my guess is that it's because it's deciding whether to let you read the article or instead put up a paywall. There are a lot of SPA sites out there, many of which aren't particularly economical with frontend resources, and they generally don't do that unless they're trying to enforce some kind of paywall or similar.
Monoliths generally server side render. Server side rendering is fast, consistent and performant, the state of the client won't get into wonky territory since they are a button click away from getting current, known good state from the server.
Does this story seem kinda…fake…to anyone else? Like, obviously companies do sometimes make decisions this stupid, but the way this is written seems a little too carefully optimized to make for a morality play of the kind HN enjoys. (And there's a potential motive, since there's a whole bunch of links to paid books and such, somewhat clumsily tied to the main narrative.)
One thing I’ve learned is that you should be wary of spending too much time on things that customers don’t see. Customers don’t care about backend engineering unless it results in benefits they can actually see, and if you spend too long on invisible features they’ll think your platform is stagnant and move somewhere else.
I am pretty sure it was a lack of demand that killed the startup. Either of these are valid problems and quite easy to deploy and work with.
Microservices solve people problem not technical. Till ~20 backend devs no point in moving to it. Monoliths are better in terms of performance, reliability and dev speed.
this goes to show that one person can make a difference, the lead architect all by himself was able to destroy a company and moral.
Ironically posted on Medium, which showed me the text, then blanked the whole screen to replace the text with light grey polyfills, and then showed me the same text again... several seconds later.
That's because Medium is a bunch of APIs and (micro) services, not a monolith like it should be.
Heck, it could be plain static HTML because it's just text for crying out loud!
Instead, it uses a GraphQL query through JSON to obtain the text of the article... that it already sent me in HTML.
Total page weight of 17 MB, of which 6.7 MB is some sort of non-media ("text") document or script.
This is user-hostile architecture astronaut madness, and is so totally normal in the modern internet that nobody even bats and eye when text takes appreciable amounts of time to render on a 6 GHz multi-core computer with 1 Gbps fibre Internet connectivity.
Your customers hate this. Your architects love it because it keeps them employed.
A simple modern Dotnet monolith with Postgres on a Linux server could deliver a much better end user experience, and it probably would take a lot less server resources than the current mess.
Monoliths vs. microservices has nothing to do with server-side rendering vs. GraphQL. Architecturally monolithic Web apps use GraphQL all the time.
I'm not sure why Medium does the weird blanking thing but my guess is that it's because it's deciding whether to let you read the article or instead put up a paywall. There are a lot of SPA sites out there, many of which aren't particularly economical with frontend resources, and they generally don't do that unless they're trying to enforce some kind of paywall or similar.
Monoliths generally server side render. Server side rendering is fast, consistent and performant, the state of the client won't get into wonky territory since they are a button click away from getting current, known good state from the server.