HN user

joeatwork

473 karma
Posts16
Comments40
View on HN

The page doesn’t say it, but this is why adding redundant safety systems and defense in depth stops working after a while - such systems end up running with (acceptable, unobserved) “holes” after a while - the more complex the system, the harder it is to perceive the holes, until one day they line up and become very obvious indeed.

Even if you’re not interested in making your own music with Strudel, this site is worth a visit for the showcase. A lot of folks are making a lot of interesting music with it!

Palladium magazine is published by The American Governance Foundation. I couldn’t find out much about it by Googling, does anybody know what its deal is?

I ran the interview team for TripleByte FastTrack early on (I’m not part of or in touch with the otherbranch folks) and I’m excited to see something like it return! The program was good at uncovering different sorts of engineering excellence. We could identify and attest for folks who were particularly fluent coders, or particularly deep systems folks, or particularly excellent debuggers, and then match them with shops that needed the sorts of things those people could do well. If the otherbranch process is like early TripleByte I’d encourage folks to give it a try because they’ll have a shot at landing jobs that are better fits for their skills and interests (in addition to just saving a bunch of time during the search!)

Software tools backed by businesses that target enterprises have very strong pressures towards obscurity, complexity, and generally optimizing for institutional goals and away from development experience and effectiveness. As tools that get developer adoption move up market they get worse and worse for the folks building with them.

Something this article leaves out is that mostly, when people are given better tools, they don’t just produce more widgets per unit time: often instead they build different (more complex, better) widgets. When I was in school I read a study about this - a design shop had N draftsmen, they introduced CAD tools anticipating reducing the staff, and when researchers went back to the shop they had the same staff, but they were designing things that wouldn’t have been practical or possible before.

They Live 2 years ago

This movie is a lot of fun, and a great window into its moment.

There are a bunch of common workloads (including i’m guessing HN itself) where the trade offs for distributed databases make them a lot harder to use well, or where distributed databases don’t make sense.

You should read this if you’re a programmer or someone who makes things. It’s fun and silly, but also makes an important point - the stuff you build is giving somebody power, and if that somebody isn’t some form of everybody, then maybe you’re not doing more good than harm.

I think it checks every box except “minimize the number of functions exposed”. Also, if your reasons for minimizing number of functions is about usability and complexity, then many functions that are all easily understood at once (and easy for the compiler to type check) might not substantially fail there either.

I wish there were more books in this mold (reimplementing interesting or foundational systems in ways intended for humans to read and understand). I feel the like systems that would admit this sort of thing are important systems. I’d love to see this done with (for example) a Smalltalk image and interpreter, or a simplified network stack.

I know it isn’t really appropriate to the spirit of the article, but it seems like in this case there is a right answer, and it’s “Fully separate object types” - it’s explicit, prevents errors, is complete, and while it requires a lot of typing to implement it doesn’t require much complexity.

Why Janet? 3 years ago

I’ve been messing with Janet for a few (maybe 10?) days and I’ve already found a few uses for sh/$ scripts and peg grammar- it hasn’t quite replaced awk for me yet but it’s getting there.

The intention is to do all of your development in containers, in whatever environment you choose, and then deploy the containers into production on a Flatcar cluster.

Indeed - MySQL was fast, freely available, lightweight, and “good enough” (and continually getting better) in an era when the commercial competitors were ultraheavy, evil or broken (and often all three). Pour one out for a real one.